UC-NRLF 


^B    bDfl    MMD 


LIBRARY 


University  of  California. 


GIF^T  OF" 


-UUiA-^wnr.. L] LX>^4cc'«3l^. 

T  ^.  \  -? 

H4,ts 


Class 


^.^■^i 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/diatessaronoftatOOhobsrich 


-'-'^r:^^^^^^ 


TTbe  '(SXnivctBit^  of  Cbica^o 

rODMDKD  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKBFBLLBR 


THE  DIATESSARON  OF  TATIAN  AND 
THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

BEING  AN  INVESTIGATION  OF  THE  DIATESSARON  FOR  THE  LIGHT 
WHICH  IT  THROWS  UPON  THE  SOLUTION  OF  THE  PROB- 
LEM OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    THE   GRADUATE    DIVINITY  SCHOOL,   IN 
CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE    OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of   new  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE  AND   INTERPRETATION) 


BY 

A.  A.  HOBSON 


^  Of  TWt 

UNIVERSITY 

or     ,^ 

£ALiF0HHi5. 


CHICAGO 
1904 


PRINTED  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 


T 

h 


TABLE  OF    CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

Bibliography 7,  8 

Introduction 9-32 

1.  Review  of  the  Situation. 

2.  Statement  of  the  Problem  of  this  Dissertation. 

3.  The  Text  Employed,  its  Limitations  and  Value. 
a)  General  Order. 

d)  Detailed  Readings. 

4.  Notes  on  Method. 

Chapter  I.  Tatian's  Preference  for  One  Source  or  Another  -  33-40 

Chapter  II.  The  Plan  of  the  Diatessaron           -         -         -  41-45 

Chapter  III.  Alterations  in  Order 46-49 

Chapter  IV.  Additions  and  Omissions        -         -         -         -  50-54 

Chapter  V.  Conflations 5  5-61 

Chapter  VI.  Rewriting 62-67 

Chapter  VII.  Incongruities  and  Repetitions    -         -        -        -  68-74 

Chapter  VIII.     Comparison  of  the  Methods  of  Tatian  and  the 

Evangelists 75-8 1 


211] 


144098 


LIST  OF  WORKS  AND  AUTHORS. 

REFERRED    TO    BY    ABBREVIATION. 

Ba.  =  Bacon,  B.  W.  :    Tatian's   Rearrangement   of    the    Fourth   Gospel,  American 

Journal  of  Theology,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  770-95. 
Ca.  =  Cassels,  W.  R.  :   Nineteenth  Century,  April,  1895,  pp.  665-81. 
Csc.  =  Ciasca,  Agostino  :    Tatiani  Evangeliorum  Harmoniae  Arabice  (Rome,  1888). 
Ful.  =  Fuller.  J.  M.  :  "  Tatian,"  in  Smith  and  Wage's   Dictionary  of  Christian 

Biography. 
Hrk.*  =  Harnack,  a.  :    Texteund  Untersuchungen,  Bd.  I,  pp.  213-18  (Leipzig,  1883). 
Hrk.^  =  Harnack,  A. :   "  Tatian,"  Encyclopcedia  Bi'itannica,  ninth  edition. 
Hrk.'=  =  Harnack,  A. :    Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Litteratur  bis  Eusebius,  Bd.  I, 

pp.  485-96  (Leipzig,  1893);  Bd.  II,  i,  pp.  284-89  (Leipzig,  1897). 
Har.*  =  Harris,  J.  R. :    The  Diatessaron  (London,  1890). 
Har.'^  =  Harris,  J.  R. :  Contemporary  Review  Vol.  LXVIII  (August,  1895),  pp.  271-78 

(also  printed  in  Christian  Literature,  Vol.  XIII,  p.  268). 
Har.*=  =  Harris,  J.  R. :   Fragments  of  the  Commentary  of  Ephraem  Syrus  on  the  Dia- 
tessaron (London,  1895). 
H.a  =  HiLL,  J.  H.:    The  Earliest  Life  of  Christ,   Being  the   Diatessaron  of  Tatian^ 

(Edinburgh,  1894). 
H.^  =  HlLL,  J.  H.:    A  Dissertation  on  the  Gospel  Commentary  of  St.  Ephraem,  the 

Syrian  (Edinburgh,  1896). 
Hj.  =  HjELT,    Arthur  :   "  Die  altsyrische   Evangelieniibersetzungen    und    Tatian's 

Diatessaron,"  mZAH^^sForschungenzur Geschichte  des neutestamentlichen  Kanons 

und  der  altkirchlichen  Litteratur,  Theil  VII,  Heft  I  (Leipzig,  1903). 
Hg.=:HoGG,  H.W. :   "The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,"  in  Menzies's  The  Ante-Nicene 

Fathers,  Vol.  IX  (New  York,  1896). 
Lgft.  =  LiGHTFOOT,  J.  B. :    Essays  on  Supernatural  Religion  (London,  1889),  pp. 

272-88. 
M.  =  Moesinger,   G.  :    Evangelii    Concordantis  Expositio    Facta    a    S.    Ephraemo 

(Venetiis,  1876). 
Mo.  =  Moore,  G.  F. :   "Tatian's  Diatessaron  and  the  Analysis  of  the  Pentateuch," 

Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  Vol.  IX,  Part  II,  pp.  201-15. 
N.  =  Nestle,  E.  :   "  Syriac  Versions,"  in  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 
R.  =  Ranke,  E.  :    Codex  Fuldensis  (Lipsiae,  1868). 
Sel.  =:  Sellin,  E.  :   "Der  Text  des  von  A.  Ciasca  (Rom,  1888)  herausgegebenen  ara- 

bischen  Diatessarons,"  in  Zahn's   Forschungen  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons 

und  der  altkirchlichen  Litteratur;  Theil  IV,  pp.  225-46  (Erlangen  und  Leipzig, 

1891). 
W.  =  Wace,  H.:    "  Tatian's  Diatessaron,"  Expositor,  Series  II,  Vol.11  (1881),  pp. 

i-ii,  128-37,  193-205. 
Z.^  =  Zahn,Th.  :   Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons  und  der 

altkirchlichen  Litteratur;  Theil  I:  "Tatian's  Diatessaron"  (Erlangen,  1881). 
213]  7 


8  HISTOBIOAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Z.**  =  Zahn,  Th.  :   Zeitschrift  fiir  kirchliche  Wissemchaft  und  kirchliches  Leben,  1884, 

pp.  618-26. 
2."=  Zahn,  Th.  :    Theologisches  Litteraturblatt,  January  3,  1896. 

TEXTS  USED  IN  VERIFICATION  AND  QUOTATIONS. 

Cur.  =  CURETON,  William  :   Remains  of  a  Very  Ancient  Recension  of  the  Four  Gos- 
pels in  Syriac  (London,  1858). 
Ben.  =  Bensley,  R.  L.  :   Harris,  J.  R.;  and  Burkitt,  F.  C.  :    The  Four  Gospels  in 

Syriac:  A  Transcription  (Cambridge,  1894). 
Lew.  =  Lewis,   Agnes   Smith  :    Some  Pages  of  the  Four  Gospels  Retranscribed ; 

together  with  a  Complete  Translation  (London,  1896). 
Pusey  =  PusEY,  P.  E.,  and  Gwilliam,  G.  H.  :  Tetraevangelium  Sanctum  (Oxford, 

1901). 
Tisch.  =  TiscHENDORF,  C.  :  Novum  Testamentum    Graece,   Editio  Octava,    Critica 
Major  (Lipsiae,  1872). 

This  bibliography  is  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive,  but  to  give  the  most  impor- 
tant works,  and  those  which  should  be  used  in  conjunction  with  this  paper.  A  num- 
ber of  old  and  now  less  important  treatises  might  be  added.  For  additional  notices 
see  the  lists  of  Hill  and  Nestle. 


214 


INTRODUCTION. 

I.  The  facts  concerning  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  so  far  as  they  have  been 
discovered,  are  well  known  to  scholars.  Since  Th.  Zahn's  work  (pub- 
lished in  1881)  upon  Ephraem's  Commentary  on  the  Diatessaron,  and 
especially  since  Ciasca's  publication  of  the  Arabic  Diatessaron  (1888), 
much  labor  has  been  expended  upon  the  problems  connected  with  this 
important  work  of  Tatian's.  The  latest,  and  perhaps  the  most  com- 
plete, summary  of  results  in  the  investigation  of  the  literary  notices  of 
Tatian  and  his  work,  and  as  regards  questions  arising  from  such  study, 
is  to  be  found  in  Hjelt's  work  (see  Hj.).  Though  this  work  is  appar- 
ently indebted,J^  a  great  degree,  to  the  earlier  publication  of  Zahn,  it 
is  briefer  than  the  latter  and  brings  the  discussion  down  to  the  present 
time.  This  recent  statement  makes  it  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  facts 
readily  accessible  in  it.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that  scholars  have 
reached  quite  general  agreement  on  a  number  of  points,'  which,  so 
far  as  we  need  mention  them,  are  these:'  Tatian  wrote  a  gospel 
(probably  173-75  A.  D.),  called  Diatessaron,  because  compiled  from 
our  four  canonical  gospels.  We  have  trustworthy  remains  of  his  work 
in  Ephraem's  Commentary,  edited  by  Moesinger,  and  in  the  quotations 
of  some  of  the  Syrian  Fathers,  especially  in  those  of  Aphraates. 
Ephraem's  Commentary  is  accessible  only  in  a  Latin  translation  of  an 
Armenian  version  of  it.  Aphraates's  quotations  are  consultable  in 
Graffin's  splendid  new  edition  of  that  Syrian  Father's  Homilies?  It  is 
in  these  quotations  alone  that  we  have  remains  of  the  original  Syriac 
Diatessaron}  Both  Aphraates  and  Ephraem  wrote  in  Syriac  during 
the  fourth  century,  the  latter  about  350  A.  D.,  the  former  a  little 
earlier.  In  addition  to  these  fragmentary  remains  of  Tatian's  gospel, 
there  is  the  harmony  of  the  gospels  preserved  in  Codex  Fuldensis, 
which  is  really  a  Latin  adaptation  of  the  Diatessaron  made  by  arran- 
ging the  Vulgate  text  in  the  order  indicated  by  Tatian's  gospel,  but 
with  considerable  modification  of  that  order.  This  Latin  harmony  was 
known  as  early  as  the  first  part  of  the  sixth  century,  and  was  compiled 

I  The  contention  of  W.  R.  Cassels  (Ca.)  adverse  to  the  items  here  mentioned  requires  little  attention, 
in  view  of  the  reply  of  J.  R.  Harris  (Har.b). 

zHrk.c,  I,  pp.  486-96;  also  Hrk.a,  pp.  213-18;  and,  for  wider  limits  of  date  than  are  suggested 
above,  cf.  Hrk.c,  H,  p.  289.     See  also,  upon  all  the  facts  mentioned,  Hill,  Hjelt,  Zahn,  and  others,  op,  cit, 

zPatrologia  Syriaca,  Pars  Prima,  Tomus  Primus. 

4  That  the  Diatessaron  was  originally  written  in  Syriac  seems  now  to  be  generally  believed.  Har- 
nack  (Hrk.b)  followed  by  W.  R.  Cassels  (Ca.),  however,  dissents. 

215]  9 


10  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

probably  somewhat  earlier  {ca.  400,  according  to  Hj.,  p.  58).  Still 
further,  in  the  Arabic  Diatessaron  published  by  Ciasca  we  have  a  quite 
skilful  and  faithful  eleventh- century  translation  of  Tatian's  work,  made 
from  a  ninth-century  Syriac  manuscript,  by  the  quite  well-known  Ara- 
bic writer  Abu  '1  Faraj  'Abdulla  ibn-at-Tayib.^  This  version  is,  with 
some  limitations,  a  trustworthy  representation  of  Tatian's  gospel.^ 
These  facts,  generally  assented  to  by  those  scholars  who  have  given 
them  consideration,  give  a  solid  basis  and  distinct  point  of  departure 
for  this  dissertation. 

2.  The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  investigate  the  relation  of 
Tatian's  Diatessaron  to  the  four  canonical  gospels,  which  indisputably 
constitute  the  chief,  if  not  the  only,  source  of  that  work,  with  a  view  to 
determining  how  far  this  relation  resembles  that  which,  on  a  docu- 
mentary theory  of  the  origin  of  the  synoptic  gospels,  is  proved  to 
exist  between  the  resultant  gospels  and  their  sources,  and  whether  this 
resemblance  is  such  as  to  support  or  discredit  that  theory.^  We  have 
in  Tatian's  work  an  attempt,  made  probably  within  one  hundred,  or  at 
most  one  hundred  and  ten,  years  after  the  completion  of  our  latest 
synoptic  gospel,  to  compile  from  written  sources  an  account  of  the  life 
of  Jesus — a  gospel,  if  you  please.^  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  we 
might  expect  this  gospel  to  show  phenomena  that  are  likely  to  occur 
in  gospels  which  are  based  on  written  sources.  The  degree  of  sim- 
ilarity between  these  phenomena  and  those  which  appear  in  a  compar- 
ison of  the  synoptic  gospels  with  their  alleged  sources  ought, 
therefore,  to  give  a  helpful  basis  for  determining  the  probability  or 
improbability  of  the  documentary  theory  as  a  sufficient  explanation 
of  the  phenomena  of  the  first  three  gospels. 

3.  This  task  necessitates  as  a  preliminary  matter  the  finding  of  sure 

5  For  a  brief,  yet  satisfactory,  presentation  and  discussion  of  available  information  concerning  the 
Arabic  Diatessaron  see  Hogg's  treatment  (Hg.). 

6  For  a  contrary  view  see  Hrk.c,  I,  p.  495.    The  whole  matter  is  discussed  below. 

7  The  documentary  hypothesis  is  often  alleged  to  be  insufficient  to  account  for  the  supposed  deviations 
of  the  gospels  from  their  alleged  sources.  The  import  of  this  objection  is  stated  with  commendable 
brevity  by  V.  H.  Stanton  in  his  article  on  the  gospels  in  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible:  "  It  is 
said  that  the  oral  theory  alone  will  account  for  the  differences  between  the  gospels."  This  objection, 
moreover,  is  the  basis  of  the  entire  argument  of  one  of  the  most  recent  attempts  to  support  the  oral-tradi- 
tion theory.  K.  Veit,  in  the  second  part  of  his  Die  synoptischen  Parallelen,  devotes  his  first  chapter 
to  a  review  of  the  present  situation  in  regard  to  the  synoptic  problem,  and  also  to  an  unfavorable  criticism 
of  every  Kombinationshypothese.  He  assumes  throughout  his  discussion  in  this  chapter  (see  in  partic- 
ular pp.  6,  9,  10)  that  the  differences  of  the  several  gospels  from  one  another  must,  each  and  every  one  of 
them,  have  some  specific  explanation ;  and  that,  if  the  explanations  which  have  been  made  by  some  on  the 
basis  of  the  "  tendencies"  of  the  several  evangelists  fail  at  any  point,  then  some  other  than  a  documentary 
theory  must  be  called  in  to  solve  the  problem.  The  results  of  this  investigation  will  have  a  direct  bear- 
ing upon  the  weight  which  should  be  allowed  this  objection. 

8  Syrian  church  fathers  were  wont  to  refer  to  the  Diatessaron  as  a  gospel.     For  the  notices  see  Hj. , 

pp.  30-47.  216 


DIATESSARON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 


11 


textual  ground.  The  two  terms  to  be  compared  in  order  to  determine 
the  relation  of  \he.  Diatessaron  to  its  sources  are  {a)  the  text  of  the  gospels 
possessed  by  T^  and  employed  by  him  in  the  work  of  constructing  D, 
and  {b)  the  text  which  from  these  sources  he  constructed.  If  we  pos- 
sessed these,  the  one  precisely  as  T  had  it,  and  the  other  precisely  as  T 
made  it,  all  differences  between  them  would  be  referable  to  T  and  would 
illustrate  his  method.  But,  in  fact,  neither  of  them  is  directly  and 
exactly  given  in  any  existing  document.  In  any  comparison  between 
the  original  text  of  the  gospels,  as  this  is  presumably  restored  today, 
and  the  text  of  D,  as  we  have  it,  allowance  must  be  made,  on  the  one 
side,  for  the  possibility  that  T  used  a  text  of  the  gospels  other  than 
that  which  is  today  accepted  as  approximately  original ;  and,  on  the 
other,  for  possible  corruption  of  the  text  of  the  Diatessaron  in  trans- 
mission. The  materials  of  which  account  must  be  taken,  because  of 
our  uncertainty  respecting  the  two  elements  of  the  comparison,  are  as 
follows : 


I.    The     Gospel     Text 

Employed  by  Tatian. 

Possible  sources : 

a)  The   Greek    gospels 
(and  their  variants). 

b)  The     Sinaitic      and 
Curetonian      Syriac 


II.    The  Original  Text  of  the  Diatessaron. 


I.    Extant     witnesses    (ar-    2. 
ranged  in  the  order  of 
their  respective  ages) : 

a)  Quotations  in  the 
Homilies  of  Aphra- 
ates. 

b)  Quotations  in  Eph- 
r^em's    Commentary. 

c)  The  gospel  harmony 
in    Codex   Fuldensis. 

d)  The  Arabic  version 
of  the  Diatessaron. 


Possible  sources  of   cor- 
ruption : 

a)  Later     Syriac     ver- 
sions : 
a)  Peshitta. 
j8)  Philoxeniana. 
7)  Harklensiana. 

b)  Arabic  readings  (due 
to): 

a)  Arabic  translator. 
/S)  Arabic  versions  of 

canonical  gospels. 
7)  Errors  of  scribes 
of  the  Arabic  Dia- 
tessaron. 

c)  Variants  of  the  text 
of  the  Greek  gospels. 

9The  following  abbreviations  will  be  used  from  this  point  on: 
A  =  the  Arabic  Diatessaron. 
E  =  Ephraem's  Commentary. 

D  =  the  Diatessaron  (without  reference  to  any  particular  witness). 
F  =  the  gospel  harmony  in  Codex  Fuldensis. 
Aph.=  quotations  in  the  Homilies  of  Aphraates. 
T  =  Tatian. 

M  =  Moesinger's  edition  of  Ephraem's  Com.m.entary. 
P  =  Peshitta  Syriac  version. 
Ss  =  Sinaitic  Syriac  Version. 
Sc  =  Curetonian  Syriac  version. 
S*=  Philoxenian  Syriac  version. 
Sfl  =  Harklensian  Syriac  version. 

For  the  symbols  for  the  Syriac  versions  I  am  indebted  to  Nestle's  article  "Syriac  Versions,"  in 
Hastings's  Dictionary, 


12  HISTOKICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

From  the  nature  of  these  materials  it  is  impossible  to  reconstruct 
either  the  precise  text  of  the  gospels  as  employed  by  T,  or  a  complete 
and  exact  text  of  the  Diatessaron  as  it  left  T's  hands ;  nor  is  this  neces- 
sary. If  from  the  list  of  passages  in  which  D  differs  from  a  standard 
Greek  text  we  eliminate  all  passages  of  D  whose  variation  from  a 
standard  text  of  the  gospels  may  be  due  to  a)  or  b)  of  Column  I,  or 
whose  phenomena  may  be  due  to  any  of  the  sources  mentioned  in 
Column  II,  2,  the  remaining  peculiarities'"  of  D  may  be  confidently 
ascribed  to  T's  literary  method.  The  construction  of  such  a  list,  how- 
ever, requires  a  comparative  evaluation  of  the  several  extant  witnesses 
of  D.  We  will  for  convenience  consider,  first,  what  witness  may  be 
safely  used  for  the  determination  of  the  general  order  of  D,  and  then, 
how  details  of  the  text  may  be  used  with  certainty. 

a)  The  general  order  of  D  can  be  ascertained  by  a  comparison  of 
A  and  E.  The  other  witnesses  give  but  little  help.  In  the  nature  of 
their  evidence,  the  quotations  in  Aphraates's  Homilies  can  give  but 
supplementary  testimony.  Such  as  it  is,  it  has  been  taken  into  account 
by  Zahn  in  his  reconstruction  of  D  from  E,  and  since  that  reconstruc- 
tion has  been  used  in  this  study,  the  said  evidence  of  Aph.  has 
been  given  sufficient  consideration  by  us.  F  is  the  only  other  witness. 
Its  general  character  all  but  excludes  it  from  consideration  as  a  chief 
witness,  though  at  points  it  serves  to  corroborate  E  and  A.  When  F  is 
compared  with  E  and  A,  it  is  clear  that  its  author  changed  D  by  omitting 
and  adding  {e.  g.,  the  section  on  the  woman  taken  in  adultery)  para- 
graphs and  by  rearranging  its  order."  The  suspicion  against  F, 
aroused  by  these  facts,  is  enhanced  by  a  comparison  of  the  order  in 
the  praefatio  with  that  of  the  actual  extant  text  of  F  (see  R.).  Not  only 
have  the  chapters  of  the  text  been  differently  numbered,  but,  if  the 
praefatio  really  represents  an  older  order  of  the  text  (Z.^,  p.  301),  addi- 
tions (viz.,  chaps.  21,  69  of  the  text),  substitutions  (chaps.  106,  107  of 
the  text  in  the  place  of  the  repetition  of  chaps.  95  and  96  of  \.h.Q praefatio 
— a  repetition  probably  due,  however,  to  the  error  of  a  scribe  in  copy- 
ing the  praefatio,  in  which  case  these  chapters  106  and  107  are  really 

10  The  terms  "  peculiarities,"  "  deviations,"  "  variants,"  used  with  reference  to  passages  in  D, 
connote  throughout  this  discussion  a  comparison  of  such  passages  with  the  Greek  gospels,  unless  some 
statement  to  the  contrary  is  made. 

11  For  a  verification  of  the  statements  made  in  this  paragraph.  Appendix  I  of  H.a  will  be  found  most 
useful.  I  have  verified  the  references  there  made,  and  with  one  exception  there  is  no  inaccuracy  that 
affects  this  study.  The  exception  is  the  attribution  of  A  6 :  23-24  (marginal  number  in  Hg.)  to  F,  chap.  80 
(according  to  the  chapter  numbers  of  the  text,  not  those  of  x!t\.t. praefatio)^  whereas  F,  chap.  80,  is  par- 
allel to  A  18 : 1-20  ff.    The  first -mentioned  passage  of  A  is  omitted  by  F. 

218 


DIATESSAKON    AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  13 

additions),  and  changes  of  order  {cf.  praefatio^  chaps.  102-4,  with  the 
text,  chaps.  103-5)  have  been  made.  Accordingly,  both  by  such  a 
comparison  and  by  that  of  F  with  E  and  A,  F  is  proved  to  be,  as  a 
whole,  untrustworthy  for  the  determination  of  the  general  order  of  D. 
Where  it  agrees  with  E  and  A  —  and  this  is  the  case  in  large  part  —  it 
may  be  used  as  corroborative  of  them.  If  its  evidence  is  opposed  by 
E  and  A,  combined  or  independent,  it  is  generally  to  be  rejected. 
E  and  F  never,  except  possibly  in  one  case  {cf.  pp.  10-14),  combine 
against  A.  There  are  a  few  instances  in  which  F  corroborates  A  at 
least  against  the  inferences  drawn  from  E  by  Zahn  (see  discussion 
below).  There  are  also  some  cases  of  differences  between  A  and  F, 
which  have  no  corroboration  in  E  for  one  or  the  other,  because  of  E's 
generally  fragmentary  testimony  to  D.  The  quite  invariable  unrelia- 
bility of  the  order  of  F,  in  contrast  to  the  almost  constant  trustworthi- 
ness of  that  of  A,  is  alone  enough  to  give  the  preference  to  A  rather 
than  to  F.  But  there  are  some  other  considerations  that  lead  to  the 
same  conclusion.  The  passages  involved  are  (i)  A  6  :  25-35  =  F,  chap. 
56";  (2)  A6  146-54  =  F,  chaps.  20,  49,  51  ;  (3)  A  7:  47-53  =  F,  chap. 
70;  (4)  A  15  :  27-32  =  F,  chap.  66  ;  (5)  A 44  :  10  =  F,  chap.  155.  If  these 
passages  are  examined,  it  will  appear  that  all  except  the  last  are  in  con- 
texts of  F  which  also  present  material  in  a  different  order  from  that  of 
A,  yet  for  the  position  of  this  contextual  material  A  has  the  support  of 
E.  It  would  accordingly  seem  reasonable  to  suppose  that,  if  Ephraem 
had  seen  fit  to  quote  from  the  passages  noted  above  (1-4),  the  position 
of  these  in  A  would  have  been  supported  by  E  just  as  the  position  of 
the  material  of  their  contexts  is.  An  examination  of  the  passages 
reveals  also  that  the  order  of  A  is  less  probably  due  to  a  superficial 
worker  than  that  of  F.  For  example,  it  is  easier  to  suppose  A44  :  10 
is  in  an  original  position  and  has  been  changed  to  that  of  F,  chap. 
155,  than  to  explain  the  reverse  process.  The  examination  of  these 
passages,  therefore,  added  to  the  consideration  of  the  general  character 
of  A  and  F  respectively,  leads  inevitably  to  the  rejection  of  F  rather  than 
A.  A  similar  confidence  in  A  is  reached  with  regard  to  passages 
omitted  by  both  E  and  F,  but  retained  in  A.'^  At  first  sight,  it  might 
be  supposed  that  the  silence  of  both  E  and  F  is  evidence  against  A, 
but  the  fragmentary  character  of  E  is  in  every  case  sufficient  to  account 

»2The  numbers  referring  to  A  are  those  which  appear  in  the  left-hand  margin  of  Hg.  On  the  same 
side  of  the  page  Hg.  has  printed  references  to  the  corresponding  pages  of  Csc.  References  to  F  are  to  the 
chapter  numbering  of  the  text.  The  sign  =  indicates  throughout  this  paper  parallel  material,  though  in 
some  citations  the  full  limits  of  the  parallels  are  not  shown. 

»3  There  are  but  three  such  passages ;  cf,   footnote  above,  p.  12,  and  H.a,  App.  I. 

219 


14  HISTOKICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

for  its  silence,  and  omission  is  characteristic  of  F.  Moreover,  A's 
inclusion  of  the  passages  is  difficult  to  explain  on  the  ground  of  scribal 
error,  for  few  scribes  would  have  selected  such  unexpected  positions. 
F  therefore  is  to  be  allowed  no  independent  weight  against  A,  no 
matter  which  of  the  above  classes  of  passages  are  considered.  If  this 
be  true,  then,  any  further  comparison  of  F  with  other  witnesses  is  unnec- 
essary. This  leaves  us  —  since,  as  already  stated,  Aph.  is  practically 
taken  into  account  below  through  our  use  of  Z.^  —  with  only  E  and  A 
to  be  compared. 

In  the  comparison  of  these  two  it  will  be  found  most  convenient 
to  use  Zahn's  reconstruction  of  D  as  the  summation  of  E's  evidence. 
With  such  a  method  of  procedure,  the  first  fact  that  attracts  attention 
is  the  remarkable  agreement  in  order  between  E  and  A — a  fact  which 
at  once,  especially  when  the  corroboration  of  F  is  remembered,  estab- 
lishes the  validity  of  the  general  order  of  both.  There  are  really  only 
six  passages  where  there  is  disagreement.  To  make  this  statement 
good,  however,  there  must  be  taken  into  account,  first,  those  passages 
to  which  Zahn  has  given,  but  on  inference  alone,  a  different  position 
from  that  which  they  occupy  in  A.  Zahn  had  for  his  placings  no  evi- 
dence in  E,  since  the  passages  in  question  do  not  occur  in  E.  He 
was  led  to  arrange  the  passages  as  he  did,  because  in  our  gospels  they 
stand  in  connection  with  other  passages  which  are  quoted  in  E,  but,  as 
quoted  are  in  no  disagreement  with  A.  Zahn's  inference  was  natural 
in  the  absence  of  evidence  from  A,  but  is  now  not  to  be  admitted  to 
have  any  weight,  especially  since  A  is  supported  by  F  in  its  positions 
for  some  of  these  passages.  There  are,  in  all,  seven  sections  in  which 
Zahn's  order  rests  solely  on  the  inference  referred  to.  These  are: 
(e)  A  5:  33-41  =  Luke  4:  i4<^-2  2d!=  Zahn,  §  32  =  M.,  pp.  128-31;*'* 
(2)  A  7:46=Mark  3:2i  =  Zahn,  §27  =  M.,  pp.  111-13;  (3)  A 
13*36,  37  =  Mark  6:12,  i3=Zahn,  §24=M.,  pp.  90-98;  (4)  A 
14:43,  44  =  Mark  6:30,  31  =  Zahn,  §  34  =  M.,  pp.  132-36;  (5)  A 
20:  12-16  =  12-16  =  Luke  11:  37-41  =  Zahn,  §  77  =  M.,  pp.  211-13; 

(6)  A  27:24,  25  =  Luke    12:47,  48  =  Zahn,  §79  =  M.,  pp.    213-18; 

(7)  A  28:  33-41  =  Luke  12:  13-21  =  Zahn,  §  54  =  M.,  pp.  i74f.  Of 
these  passages,  concerning  which,  let  us  remember,  E  is  entirely  silent, 
five — (i),  (3),  (4),  (5),  and  (7)  —  are  given  the  same  position  by  A  and 
F.  This  agreement  without  any  adverse  testimony  of  E,  is  conclusive 
against  the  mere  inference  of  Zahn.     Of  the  remaining  passages  one 

M  For  a  convincing  discussion  of  this  section  see  H.a,  App.  IX.  All  references  to  Zahn's  sections 
throughout  our  investigation  refer  to  his  reconstruction  of  D  in  Forsch.,  I,  pp.  112-219. 


DIATESSARON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         15 

— (2) — is  entirely  omitted  by  F,  and  therefore  is  to  be  classed  and 
disposed  of  together  with  the  passages  discussed  above,  in  which  A  is 
to  be  accepted  where  E  and  F  are  silent.  The  only  other  passage  — 
(6)  —  is  differently  placed  by  A  and  F,  though  the  difference  is  not 
great  {cf.  A  26  :  43-45  and  27  :  24,  25  with  F,  chaps.  109  ff.)  But,  in  so 
far  as  there  is  difference,  A  is  to  be  accepted  rather  than  F,  on  the 
principles  determined  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  We  may,  therefore, 
accept  the  testimony  of  A  as  to  all  seven  of  these  passages  rather  than 
the  inference  of  Zahn.'^  But  there  is  still  another  passage,  not  noted 
above,  which  needs  separate  treatment,  because  it  rests  on  slightly 
more  than  inference.  This  is  A  31:36-52  :=:  Luke  19  :  1 1-27  =  Zahn, 
§80=  M.,  pp.  218  f.  From  the  fact  that  Aphraates  brings  this  passage 
into  connection  with  the  similar  parable  of  the  ten  talents,  and  that  F 
gives  the  passage  in  the  same  connection,  Zahn  concludes  that,  there- 
fore, it  had  this  position  in  the  original  Diatessaron.  E  is  silent.  F 
is  to  be  given  no  more  than  its  usual  value.  In  regard  to  Aphraates 
it  may  fairly  be  urged  that  it  would  be  natural  to  expect  these  parables 
to  be  combined  in  a  homily  even  more  than  in  a  work  like  F,  though, 
in  the  latter,  the  tendency  to  bring  similar  material  together  is  marked. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  a  scribe  should  separate  the 
parables  if  they  stood  together  in  D,  or  why  he  should  have  put  this 
one  of  the  pounds  at  the  particular  point  at  which  it  occurs  in  A.  A 
more  reasonable  explanation  of  all  the  evidence  than  that  which  Zahn 
gave  to  a  part  of  it  is  that  A  correctly  represents  D,  while  Aph.  and  F 
are  derived  from  such  an  order  as  that  of  A,  and  are  due  to  the  ten- 
dency to  associate  similar  material.  The  conclusion  is,  therefore,  to 
be  accepted  that  Zahn's  inferences,  in  all  eight  instances,  are  untrust- 
worthy because  of  the  lack  of  evidence.  There  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  Zahn  would  have  drawn  such  conclusions  as  he  did,  if  he 
had  had  access  to  A.  We  may,  accordingly,  conclude' that  A  correctly 
represents  the  order  of  D  in  the  above  passages. 

We  may,  therefore,  proceed  to  discuss  the  six  passages  mentioned 
above  as  raising  real  difficulties. 

I.  A3: 1—4  :jo,  Luke  2  :  40-3  : 6  +  Matt.  3  : 1-3  {cf.  A3  : 24-44)^ 
2^hn,  §  7/  M.,  pp.  36-40.^^ — The  respective  order  of  E  and  A  is  as 
follows : 

15  Zahn  has  acknowledged  the  limitations  of  his  work  done  before  the  publication  of  A.  See  Z.b, 
pp.  6i8,  623. 

16  Only  those  parts  of  the  parallel  passages  of  material  are  indicated  which  are  needed  for  the 
investigation.     Cf.  footnote,  p.  13. 

221 


16  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

E  (r)  Matt.  2:15. (3)  John  1:17;  1:14;  1:19-28  (partly). 

A  (i)  Matt.  2:i<5-23.        {2)  Luke  2:40 — 3:6        (3)  John  i:  7-28. 
+  Matt.  3:1-3. 

E  (4)  Matt,  3:10. (5)  Luke  2:47-49.         (6)  Matt.  3  : 4,  9.  (7)  John  1:29. 

A  (4)  Matt.  3:4-104-  (6)  See  (4).  (7)  John  i  :29ff. 

Luke  3:10-28. 

The  chief  point  of  difference  is  the  position  of  A  (2)  and  E  (5), 
which  are  the  same  in  regard  to  subject-matter.  If  E's  (5)  agreed 
with  A's  (2),  there  would  be  no  difficulty,  for  (6)  would  then  follow  (4) 
immediately,  and  the  transposition  of  Matt.  3:10  would  be  of  very 
little  significance,  since  all  of  E's  quotations  in  (4)  and  (6)  come  from 
the  same  general  ^section  of  Matthew.  That  E's  position  for  (5)  is 
correct  is  impossible  to  believe ;  for  how  could  T  have  been  led  to 
insert  the  account  of  Jesus'  visit  to  Jerusalem  at  twelve  years  of  age, 
in  the  midst  of  the  account  of  John  the  Baptist's  ministry,  and  this,  too, 
in  such  an  order  that  John  is  made  to  begin  his  address  to  the  Phari- 
sees (Matt.  3:10),  then  this  is  broken  by  the  account  of  Jesus'  journey 
(Luke  2:47-49),  then  a  description  of  John's  raiment  (Matt.  3  : 4)  is 
introduced,  and  finally  the  words  of  John  are  resumed  (Matt.  3  : 9  and 
John  1:29),  at  a  point  (Matt.  3:9)  before  the  break  above  noted  occurs 
(Matt.  3:10)?  No  explanation  of  such  an  order  is  possible.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  order  of  the  narrative  in  A  is  natural,  and  is  sup- 
ported by  that  of  F.  The  only  reasonable  conclusion  is  that  Ephraem's 
brief  comment  on  Luke  2 :  47-49  (M.,  p.  40)  has  been  displaced.  The 
displacement  is  easily  explained,  if  it  be  true,  as  has  been  suggested  by 
Zahn  (Z.%  p.  51),  that  E  represents,  in  its  extant  form,  notes  taken  by 
some  student  as  he  listened  to  Ephraem's  lectures.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
impossible  to  accept  E's  order  as  original,  and  therefore  the  natural 
order  of  A,  supported  by  that  of  F,  seems  to  represent  D  correctly. 

IL  A  J :  4g — 6:4  ==  Luke  5.-  /-//  =  Zahn,  §  /^  =  M.,  p.  5p. — 
Here,  too,  there  is  a  real  difference  between  E  and  A.  The  latter 
has  the  account  of  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  in  connection  with 
the  call  of  the  first  four  disciples,  before  the  account  of  Jesus'  disciples' 
baptizing  in  Judea.  In  other  words,  A  represents  T  as  having  brought 
Luke's  account  of  the  call  of  the  four  into  connection  with  the  account 
of  Mark  and  Matthew,  but  without  interweaving,  and  as  having  put 
the  combined  accounts  before  that  of  John  3  :  22 — 4  :  3a.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  order  of  the  quotations  in  E  indicates  that  the  accounts 
from  the  synoptic  gospels  followed  that  from  John  3  :  22 — 4  :  ^a.  But  E 
omits  a  considerable  part  of  D  here,  and  it  is  difficult  to  reconstruct,  on 
the  basis  of  its  testimony  at  this  point.    Zahn  says,  referring  to  this  por- 


DIATESSARON   AND    THE    SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  17 

tion  of  E  (§  13,  p.  128):  "Der  springende  Charakter  des  Commentars 
macht  die  Wiederherstellung  der  Ordnung  fast  unmoglich."  On  the 
other  hand,  A  gives  the  accounts  just  where  we  might  expect  them, 
and,  so  far  as  the  material  mentioned  is  concerned,  is  supported  by  F 
in  so  doing.  This  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  A  is  again  correct. 
III.  A  14: g  {cf.  A  8: 47)=  Luke  16: 17  =  Zahn,%  17  {cf.%26) 
=  M.,p.  65. —  The  difference  here  is  not  very  serious.  Zahn  recog- 
nizes the  possibility  that  Ephraem  may  have  quoted  here  Luke  16:17 
as  a  substitute  for  Matt.  5  :*i8,  which  was  in  D  at  this  point,  and  is  so 
preserved  by  A  (8  :  47).  It  is  not  at  all  clear  even  that  E  represents  his 
quotation  of  Luke  16:  17  as  a  part  of  the  text  of  D.  The  passage  is 
not  quoted  to  be  commented  upon,  but  is  introduced  as  illustrative 
material.  It  is  certainly  not  violent,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  Ephraem 
used  in  his  lecture  this  quotation,  which  came  to  him  more  readily  than 
Matt.  5:  18,  even  though  he  was  discussing  the  context  of  the  latter. 
The  probability  that  this  is  true  is  strengthened  by  recalling  that  the 
verses  are  not  greatly,  though,  on  close  study,  distinctly  different. 
It  is  still  further  strengthened  by  the  difficulty  of  supposing  that  T, 
working  with  written  sources,  should  have  made  this  substitution  when, 
in  a  considerable  part  of  the  context  of  A  8:47  going  either  back- 
ward or  forward,  he  was  relying  entirely  upon  Matthew  (except  for  two 
small  items  not  occurring  at  all  in  the  first  gospel).  Again,  F  supports 
A  at  this  point.  Furthermore,  there  is  some  corroboration  of  A  by 
Aph.  While  it  is  not  a  settled  fact  that  Aph.  used  only  D,  it  is  certain 
that  he  quoted  his  gospel  texts  largely  from  it.  It  is,  accordingly, 
significant  that,  while  he  has  quoted  or  made  recognizable  allusions  to 
the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew  fifty-nine  times,  and  has  quoted  our  very 
verse  (18)  twice,  he  never  quotes  nor  alludes  to  Luke  16 :  17  in  all  his 
homilies.'^  This  is  somewhat  surprising  if  Luke  16:17  stood  in  his 
text  of  D  where  Matt.  5:18  now  stands  in  A,  and  if  Matt.  5:  18  was 
thus  entirely  omitted  from  D.  But,  whatever  conclusion  we  reach  as 
to  whether  A  is  correct  at  8:47  in  having  Matt.  5:18  rather  than 
Luke  16: 17,  there  is  no  evidence  to  raise  a  question  of  the  validity  of 
A  in  giving  Luke  16:17  at  A  14:9.  The  only  question  to  be 
answered,  therefore,  is:  Did  T  use  Luke  16:17  twice,  substituting  it 
in  the  first  instance  for  Matt.  5  :  18?  A  negative  answer  is  probable 
in  view  of  the  above  considerations.  It  was  in  all  probability  Ephraem 
who  made  the  substitution,  not  Tatian. 

17  The  facts  concerning  Aphraates  which  are  used  in  this  paper  have  been  ascertained  by  the  present 
writer  through  an  investigation  of  the  marginal  notes  in  Graffin's  edition. 

223 


18  HISTOEIOAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

IV.  A  15: iy-26  {cf.  A  12: 40  ff.)  =  Luke  10:3-12  =  Zahn,  §  24 
=  M.y  pp.  go-g8. —  The  problem  in  this  case  is  as  follows:  In  the 
midst  of  a  comment  on  Matthew,  chap.  10  —  the  speech  of  instructions 
to  the  Twelve  as  they  are  about  to  be  sent  out  by  Jesus — Ephraem 
quotes  what  is,  at  least  apparently,  Luke  10:5,  and  that,  too,  as  a  part 
of  the  text  of  D  (M.,  p.  92).  This  would  suggest  that  T  had  inter- 
woven with  this  speech  the  similar  instructions  to  the  Seventy  recorded 
in  Luke  10:3-12.  This  suggestion,  adopted  by  Zahn,  is  further  sup- 
ported, according  to  Hill  (Appendix  IX),  by  some  traces  of  con- 
flation still  to  be  found  in  A  itself  (viz.,  "two  and  two,"  A  12:43; 
Luke  10:1;  and  "  lambs,"  A  13  :  i  ;  Luke  10  :  3)  ;  and  especially  by 
the  fact  that  F  has  still  more  of  the  interweaving  at  this  point  and 
omits  Luke  10  :  3-12  at  the  place  where  A  (15  :  17-26)  includes  it.  If 
A  is  to  be  preferred  here,  this  array  of  evidence,  which  at  least  seems 
strong,  must  be  disposed  of.  Yet  the  case  against  A  is  not  so  strong 
as  it  may  at  first  seem.  All  of  the  items  of  evidence,  when  scrutinized 
separately,  are  found  to  have  little,  and  some  of  them  no,  weight. 

It  is  not  at  all  clear  that  the  quotation  in  E  really  represents  a  use 
of  Luke  10:5  by  T.     To  determine  this,  the  following  columns  will 
be  found  useful : 
Parallel    Accounts   of  E  Account  of  Sending  the 

THE   Sending   of    the  Seventy. 

Twelve. 

(Matt.  10  :  12.)  d<T€pxf>fJ^-  (M.,  p.  92.)  In  quamcum-  (Luke  10  :  5.)  eh  ^v  5'  hv 
VOL  di  els  T^v  oUlav  d<rvd-  que  domum  intraveritis  pri-  elciXdijTe  oUlav  irpdrov  \i- 
ffaffde  air-ffv.  mum  salutate  domum  (cited    yere  elp-^vrj  ry  otKip  To^rip. 

as  text  of  D). 

(Luke  9  :  4a.)    Kal  els  ^v 
8lv  oldav  elfffKBrjTe.  (M.,  p.  63.)    Inquamcum- 

que  domum  intraveritis  pri- 
mum  dicite,  pax  huic  domui 
(cited  as  an  illustration). 

If  we  suppose  that  T  used  only  the  parallel  accounts  of  the  sending 
of  the  Twelve,  we  must  conclude  that  he  employed  Matt.  10:12; 
modified  its  first  member,  under  the  influence  of  Luke  9 :  4a,  from  a 
participial  to  a  finite  construction;  added />rimum  (if  E  correctly  repre- 
sents the  text  of  D),  either  according  to  a  characteristic  of  his  general 
literary  method,  or  under  the  influence  of  the  similar  saying  in  Luke 
10:  5;  and  substituted  domum  for  a.vry\v.  If  we  suppose  T  used  here 
Luke  10:5,  we  must  note  carefully  that  he  changed  the  position  of 
oikLox  in  the  first  member,  and  omitted  tovto)  and  substituted  salutate 
for  XcycTc  dpnivy\  in  the  second.     On  neither  supposition  do  we  get  an 


DIATESSAKON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  19 

exact  quotation.  Taking  the  two  members  of  the  verse  separately,  i; 
is  to  be  noted  that  the  first  agrees  with  Luke  10:5,  excepting  the 
inexplicable  change  of  order  (unless  appeal  to  T's  literary  habits  is 
made);'^  but  it  may  also  be  assigned  to  Luke  9  :  4a,  and  that,  too,  with 
no  unexplained  element.  The  latter  assignment  is,  accordingly, 
slightly  more  probable,  because  nothing  remains  to  be  explained.  As 
regards  the  second  member,  if  we  assign  it  to  Matthew,  we  must  sup- 
pose either  that  E's  text  is  unreliable,  or  that  T  added  primum  and 
substituted  domum  for  avTiJv.  If  we  assign  it  to  Luke  10:5,  we  must 
conclude  that  Tatian  was  influenced  by  Matt.  10:12  in  substituting 
\k-^er^  eiprjvTj  for  aaTrda-aaSe  and  in  the  omission  of  tovtw.  Accordingly, 
it  is  all  but  impossible  to  determine  which  assignment  of  the  second 
member  is  least  beset  with  difficulties.  On  account  of  its  greater 
general  similarity  to  Matthew,  however,  the  assignment  in  this  direc- 
tion is  slightly  more  probable.  Therefore,  both  the  members,  if  con- 
sidered separately,  are  more  probably  to  be  assigned  to  the  parallel 
accounts  of  the  sending  of  the  Twelve  (the  first  column  above). 
Really,  the  only  difficult  element  in  such  an  assignment  is  prz'mum, 
which  occurs  only  in  Luke  10:5  (account  of  the  sending  out  of  the 
Seventy).  It  is  certainly  precarious  to  conclude  from  the  presence  of 
this  one  word  that  the  entire  passage  Luke  10:3-12  was  conflated  here 
in  the  text  of  D  which  E  used.  And  this  word,  in  this  one  verse,  is 
the  only  testimony  to  such  interweaving  that  E  offers ;  for  the  quota- 
tion of  Luke  10 : 6,  which  Zahn  includes  in  this  section,  occurs  in  such 
a  connection  as  to  give  no  indication  of  the  order  of  Ephraem's  exem- 
plar, being  quoted  (M.,  p.  105),  as  Zahn  himself  says,  decidedly  ausser 
Zusammenhang.  But  not  only  is  E's  positive  evidence  precarious;  it 
is  all  but  entirely  negatived  by  a  consideration  growing  out  of  the  fact 
that  E  quotes  Luke  10:5  in  another  form  at  a  different  point  (M.,  p. 
63;  cf.  p.  18).  The  exact  quotation  of  this  verse  as  illustrative  mate- 
rial indicates  that  when  Ephraem  referred  to  the  idea  expressed  in 
it,  this  idea  was  apt  to  occur  to  his  mind  in  the  form  of  Luke  10:5. 
Therefore,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  this  verse  has  influ- 
enced him  in  quoting  D  at  the  point  under  discussion.  Such  a 
supposition  will  remove  every  difficulty  in  the  way  of  trusting  A,  /.  ^., 
so  far  as  E  awakens  distrust.  The  supposition  is  supported,  more- 
over, not  only  by  this  double  quotation  of  Luke  10:5,  but  also  by 
Ephraem's  notoriously  general  looseness  in  quoting  (^/.  H.'',  pp.  18-25). 

»8No  appeal  to  T's  literary  habits  can  be  made  in  this  discussion  either  for  one  assignment  or  the 
other,  since  on  this  ground  a  case  could  be  made  out  for  either. 

225 


20  HISTOEICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Besides  this  ground,  E  itself  gives  further  evidence  for  distrusting  it 
as  a  basis  for  a  reconstruction  of  D  at  this  point.  Ephraem  quotes 
Matt.  io:8/^  ("gratis  accepistis,  gratis  date"),  both  in  connection  with 
his  comments  on  the  sending  out  of  the  Twelve  (M.,  p.  91)  and  with 
those  on  the  sending  out  of  the  Seventy  (M.,  p.  115).  This  assignment 
of  the  quotations  is  indisputable.  Analogously  to  the  position  of  Zahn, 
it  must  be  granted  that  this  evidence  proves  a  conflation  at  both  points 
in  D.  But  it  is  distinctly  improbable  that  T  harmonized  and  conflated 
these  two  sets  of  instructions,  and  then  used  the  conflated  passage 
twice.  But  the  only  other  alternative  is  that  E  is  not  to  be  accepted 
as  truly  representing  the  text  of  D  at  this  point.  Though  we  have  not 
been  able  with  entire  certainty  to  determine  the  source  of  the  quotation 
which  has  been  discussed  at  length,  we  have  nevertheless,  by  these 
considerations,  shown  that  it  is  improbable  that  E  is  at  this  place 
trustworthy.  In  this  way,  therefore,  we  have  disposed  of  that  part,  at 
least,  of  the  array  of  evidence  against  A  which  is  supposed  to  be  sup- 
plied by  E. 

The  testimony  of  F,  which  is  held  to  corroborate  E,  consists  in  the 
inclusion,  amid  the  instructions  to  the  Twelve,  of  Luke  10:7,  ^^^  o^ 
the  omission  of  Luke  10:  3-12  where  A  presents  it  as  a  part  of  D.  It 
is  to  be  particularly  noted  that  F  does  not  support  E  in  its  quotation 
discussed  above,  upon  which  Zahn's  reconstruction  is  chiefly  based. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  one  point  F  agrees  with  A  against  E  in  quoting 
Luke  10:16  in  connection  with  the  instructions  to  the  Seventy.  E 
quotes  it  (M.,  p.  94,  "qui  vos  spernit,  me  spernit"),  but  rather,  it  may 
be  argued,  as  illustrative  material  than  as  a  part  of  the  text  to  be  com- 
mented upon.  If  the  quotation  be  held  to  be  from  Ephraem's  exem- 
plar at  the  point  where  he  is  expounding,  there  is  certainly  present  the 
disagreement  alluded  to.  The  question,  therefore,  arises  as  to  whether 
the  phenomena  of  F  really  corroborate  the  evidence  of  E,  if  there  be 
any,  or  are  only  examples  of  certain  characteristics  of  the  compiler  of 
F.  It  is  certainly  characteristic  of  him  to  make  additions  and  omis- 
sions of  this  kind.  Moreover,  the  conclusion  drawn  from  the  omission 
of  Luke  10:3-12  is  greatly  weakened,  if  not  entirely  invalidated,  by 
the  fact  that  not  only  these  verses,  which,  on  the  view  of  Zahn  and 
Hill,  ought  not  to  appear,  but  also  verses  13-15,  are  omitted.  E 
shows  no  indication  that  these  latter  were  conflated  with  the  instruc- 
tions to  the  Twelve,  but  A  gives  their  Matthean  parallel  after  Luke 
10:12  (A  15  :  28-30).  Now,  F  agrees  with  A  at  this  point  in  the  use 
of  the  parallel  from  Matthew  rather  than  the  Lukan  version,  though  it 

226 


DIATESSARON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  21 

has  this  material  from  Matthew  in  a  different  position.  (This  position, 
differing  from  that  of  A,  agrees  in  no  way  with  that  of  E.)  Therefore, 
since  the  author  of  F  habitually  adds  and  omits,  and  since  at  this 
particular  point  he  is  proved  to  be  altering  D,  without  any  possible 
agreement  with  E,  in  that  he  omits  vss.  13-15,  as  A  does,  and  gives 
the  Matthean  material  in  an  unacceptable  position,  the  phenomena  of 
F  should  probably  be  reckoned  as  due  to  the  compiler,  and  not  to  his 
text  of  D.  We  might  conclude,  accordingly,  without  further  discus- 
sion, that,  in  view  of  F's  partial  support  of  A,  and  since  the  alleged 
evidence  of  F  fails  E  at  the  critical  point  of  the  latter's  quotation, 
therefore  F  does  not  corroborate  E.  But  there  are  two  other  consid- 
erations. First,  F's  order  has  an  intrinsic  improbability.  It  repre- 
sents T  as  having  divided,  if  Zahn  and  Hill  are  correct,  the  speech 
containing  the  instructions  to  the  Seventy;  as  having  conflated  one 
part  with  the  similar  speech  to  the  Twelve  in  Matthew;  as  having 
changed  another  part  to  a  position  entirely  out  of  its  canonical  con- 
nection;  and  as  having  left  the  mere  end  of  this  discourse  (Luke 
10  :  16  f.)  at  the  point  where  A  gives  the  whole  speech.  Such  a  pro- 
cedure is  inexplicable  whether  we  view  it  independently  or  in  the  light 
of  Tatian's  method.  Considered  independently,  no  further  remark  is 
needed.  On  the  other  hand,  Tatian  has  never  elsewhere,  so  far  as  can 
be  determined,  proceeded  so  clumsily  as  the  arrangement  of  F  would 
indicate  he  had  done.  Second,  F  cannot  be  said  to  have  at  this  point 
any  thoroughgoing  conflation,  such  as  Hill  seems  to  imply,  and  such 
as  Tatian  very  often  made,  since  its  conflation  consists  simply  in  the 
addition  of  the  one  verse,  Luke  10:7.  Other  material  from  the 
instructions  to  the  Seventy  might  have  been  used,  and,  according  to 
the  general  methods  of  T,  evidence  of  which  is  still  preserved  in  A,  is 
to  be  expected  in  the  conflation.  These  two  considerations  —  the 
clumsiness  and  incompleteness  of  the  work  of  the  author  of  F  upon 
the  passages  under  discussion  —  strengthen  the  conclusion  already 
reached,  that  the  phenomena  of  F  are  due  to  the  methods  of  the  com- 
piler of  F.  We  have,  therefore,  no  evidence  with  which  to  support  E, 
even  if  the  testimony  of  the  latter  be  given  weight. 

There  still  remains  the  evidence  of  A,  with  reference  to  the  con- 
flation of  the  two  discourses  under  discussion.  The  force  of  any 
allegation  based  on  A,  disappears  as  soon  as  the  supposed  testimony  is 
examined.  The  use  of  "  lambs  "  (Luke  10:3)  as  over  against  "  sheep  " 
(Matt.  10  :  16)  is  of  little  significance,  since  "sheep,"  not  "lambs,"  is 
supported   by    E  (M.,    p.  91,  oves),  and   since    the   difference  is  but 

227 


22  HISTOEICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

slight  in  any  case.  The  touch  '*two  and  two"  is  not  due  to  Luke 
ID  :  I  as  Hill  apparently  supposed,  but  to  the  Markan  parallel  account 
of  the  sending  out  of  the  Twelve  (Mark  6  :  7).  Both  of  these  traces  are 
absent  from  F.  The  evidence  of  A  in  favor  of  the  alleged  conflation 
is,  therefore,  nil. 

Taken  singly,  the  witnesses  against  the  order  suggested  by  A,  one 
and  all,  may  be  disposed  of.  In  combination,  the  evidence  amounts 
to  the  united  force  of  several  rather  remote  possibilities.  The  evidence 
of  E,  which  may  quite  reasonably  be  explained  away  by  an  appeal  to 
Ephraem's  looseness  in  quoting  amounts  to  little  more,  even  when  this 
appeal  be  waived,  than  the  presence  of  one  word  from  Luke,  chap.  10. 
The  testimony  of  F,  which  is  derived  from  the  occurrence  of  phenomena 
very  probably  due  to  the  compiler  of  the  Latin  harmony,  does  not 
corroborate  E  at  the  critical  point,  though  the  phenomena  upon  which 
it  is  based  may  be  interpreted  so  as  to  give  some  plausibility  to  the 
conclusion  drawn  from  the  testimony  of  E.  There  can  hardly  be  said 
to  be  any  corroboration  by  A  of  any  particular  point  of  E  or  F,  and 
only  the  most  meager  sort  in  any  general  way,  viz.,  the  possible  signi- 
ficance of  the  use  of  "  lambs."  On  the  other  hand,  over  against  these 
remote  possibilities  of  corroboration  there  are  the  slight  disagreements 
of  E  and  F,  and  the  more  pronounced  difference  between  A  and  F, 
which  were  mentioned  above.  Therefore,  even  when  we  combine  the 
evidence  of  the  several  witnesses,  their  corroboration  is  weakened  by 
mutual  disagreement,  and  the  opinion  of  Zahn  and  Hill  can  be  regarded 
as  no  more  than  possibly  correct.  Independently  considered,  the 
witnesses  fall  to  the  ground.  The  probable  conclusion  of  the  whole 
matter  is  this  :  The  general  excellence  of  A  as  a  witness  for  the  order 
of  D  —  at  most  this  is  the  only  passage  where  A  does  not  correctly 
represent  D  —  makes  it  probable,  in  view  of  the  weakness  of  the  evidence 
of  the  other  witnesses  here  that  at  this  point  as  well  as  elsewhere  A  is 
to  be  trusted. 

Whatever  may  be  concluded,  the  extreme  limit  to  be  regarded  in 
any  appeal  to  these  sections  of  A  is  this  :  We  must  not  draw  conclusions 
from  the  presence  of  Luke  10:3-12  in  its  present  position  in  A.  If 
this  limitation  be  observed,  we  shall  be  safe  in  any  other  use  of  A. 
The  only  use  of  the  section  in  this  paper  is  that  on  p.  60,  which  is  not 
invalidated  by  the  above  conclusion  but  would  be  made  even  more 
valuable,  were  the  view  just  opposed  correct. 

V.  A,  chaps.  2^-27  -  Matt.,  chap.  18  =  Zahn,  §§  43-30  =  M.,  pp. 
J62-63.  —  It  was  impossible  for  Zahn  to  reconstruct,  from  Ephraem's 

228 


DIATESSABON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  23 

fragmentary  quotations,  an  order  of  T's  distribution  of  Matt,  chap.  i8 
which  would  have  been  compatible  with  the  order  in  A.  He  recognized 
the  difficulty  of  his  situation  when  he  says  {in  loco):  "Die  Zusammen- 
setzung  dieser  Perikope  ist  nicht  mit  Sicherheit  anzugeben."  Had  he 
had  access  to  A,  he  would  have  seen  that  the  quotations  in  E,  though  few, 
are  in  precisely  the  order  which  these  texts  occupy  in  A,  though  that 
order  is  quite  remarkable.  Instead,  therefore,  of  conflicting  with  A, 
E  gives  to  it  peculiarly  strong  corroboration.  Furthermore,  so  far  as 
Matt.  i8:  lo,  ii  is  concerned,  with  which  Zahn  had  such  great  diffi- 
culty {vide  in  loco),  F  also  supports  A's  arrangement.  These  facts  have 
only  to  be  stated  and  it  will  be  concluded  that  A  is  correct  here. 

VI.  A  J  J  :  I -1 7  =  Mark  ii  :ig-26  =  Za/in,  %  6/  =  M.,  pp.  182- 
8q.  —  In  the  arrangement  of  material  here,  E,  A,  and  F  each  give  a 
different  order  : 

E.  A.  F. 

1.  The  cursing  of  the  fig    i.    The  cursing   of  the  fig    2.    The  visit  of  Nicodemus. 
tree.  tree.  i.    The  cursing  of  the  fig 

3.  The  lesson.  2.    The  visit  of  Nicodemus.  tree. 

2.  The  visit  of  Nicodemus.    3.    The  lesson  from  the  tree.    3.    The  lesson. 

4.  The  parable  of  the  un-    4.    The  parable  of  the  un-    4.    The  parable  of  the  un- 
just judge.  just  judge.  just  judge. 

The  three  witnesses  agree  in  presenting  Tatian  as  having  brought 
together  passages  widely  separated  in  our  gospels  and,  therefore,  in  a 
general  way  A  is  supported  as  correct.  The  representation  of  A  is  that 
the  fig  tree  was  cursed  (i)  on  a  certain  day  in  the  evening  of  which 
Nicodemus  made  his  visit  (2).  The  next  morning,  as  the  disciples 
passed  the  tree  on  their  way  to  the  city  and  noticed  its  condition,  Jesus 
drew  the  lesson  (3)  from  it.  To  this  lesson  is  attached  the  parable  of 
the  unjust  judge  (4).  This  order  of  events  may  easily  be  supposed  to 
have  been  suggested  to  Tatian  by  his  Markan  source,  in  which  i  and  3 
occur  on  successive  days.  A's  order  is,  therefore,  by  no  means 
impossible  in  the  light  of  T's  sources.  Moreover,  if  A  be  supposed  to 
preserve  the  original  order,  that  of  E  and  F  may  be  explained  as  deri- 
vations. There  would  be  the  constant  temptation  to  change  the  order 
of  A  by  bringing  together  the  separated  elements  i  and  3.  On  the 
hypothesis  that  Mark  was  used  by  the  author  of  the  first  gospel,  pre- 
cisely this  change  has  been  made  by  him.  Ephraem  and  the  author  of 
F  fell  into  this  temptation.  Ephraem  made  the  combination  of  sepa- 
rated elements  by  putting  3  before  2  ;  the  author  of  F,  by  placing  2 
before  i.    The  temptation  in  the  case  of  Ephraem  was  especially  strong, 

229 


24  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

since  in  lecturing  it  would  be  most  logical  and  convenient  to  conclude 
the  comments  on  both  i  and  3  before  passing  to  the  remainder  of  the 
passage.  In  the  case  of  the  not  over-keen  compiler  of  F  the  temptation 
was  likely  to  be  yielded  to  at  once  —  possibly  under  the  influence  of 
Matthew — because  of  his  inability  to  see  the  superior  order  which  is 
preserved  by  A.  In  contrast  to  this  ready  derivation  of  E  and  F  from 
A  is  the  difficulty  of  supposing  either  E  or  F  to  be  the  original  from 
which  the  other  orders  are  derived.  Indeed,  there  is  an  incongruity  in 
E's  arrangement,  since  it  separates  3  and  4,  though  the  presence  of  4 
in  this  part  of  D  can  be  explained  alone  by  its  fitness  immediately  to 
follow  3.  Besides  these  considerations,  there  is  the  evidence  deduced 
by  combining  the  several  witnesses  in  groups  of  two.  E  and  A  agree 
against  F  in  giving  2  some  position  after  i.  A  and  F  agree  against  E 
for  the  placing  of  3  immediately  before  4  and  after  2.  Thus  for  each 
of  the  elements  of  its  order,  save  the  separation  of  i  and  3,  A  has  the 
support  of  one  of  the  other  witnesses,  while  these  other  witnesses  dis- 
agree as  to  all  elements  except  4,  as  to  which  all  the  witnesses  agree. 
Therefore,  since  A  is  shown  to  be  correct  by  its  combinations  with  now 
E,  now  F,  for  the  just-mentioned  relations  of  items,  and  since  E  and  F 
mutually  disagree  as  well  as  differ  from  A  as  regards  i  and  3,  and  since 
A's  order  is  intrinsically  superior,  while  at  the  same  time  giving  rise  to 
the  above-mentioned  temptation  to  alter  it,  we  are  forced  to  conclude  in 
favor  of  A  in  the  whole  arrangement.'^  Whether,  therefore,  we  examine 
A  on  its  own  merits,  or  group  the  witnesses,  we  are  brought  to  the 
same  result,  viz.,  A's  order  correctly  presents  that  of  D. 

We  have  now  considered  all  of  the  six  passages  wherein  the  recon- 
structed text  of  D,  made  by  Zahn,  differs  in  order  from  A.  On 
thorough  investigation,  it  develops  that  there  are  few  real  differences, 
and,  with  one  .possible  exception  (IV,  above),  A  is  everywhere  to  be 
trusted  as  correctly  preserving  the  order  of  D.  We  have,  therefore, 
certain  ground  in  A's  order  of  sections. 

b)  We  may,  accordingly,  turn  our  attention  to  the  details  of  the 
text.  Of  the  extant  witnesses  to  the  text  of  D  A  is  the  only  one  that 
can  be  used  as  a  satisfactory  basis  for  our  study.  The  remains  in  E 
and  Aph.*^  are  too  fragmentary  for  such  use.     F"  is  in   no  sense  a 

>9For  an  extended,  but  not  always  convincing,  discussion  of  all  the  differences  between  A  and  E  see 
H.a,  App.  IX,  to  which  the  above  examination  is  much  indebted. 

20  The  quotations  of  D  in  Syrian  Fathers  other  than  Aphraates  have  not  yet  been  made  accessible  to 
any  considerable  extent.  Zahn  has  made  some  references  in  his  notes,  and  these  have  been  considered 
herein.  J.  R.  Harris  (Har.c)  has  collected  from  the  writings  of  Ishodad  quotations  of  E  in  which  there 
are  some  remains  of  D.  These  quotations,  however,  hardly  suggest  that  the  results  of  this  investigation 
would  be  appreciably  affected  by  further  discoveries  in  Syrian  patristic  literature. 

21  The  view  of  F  now  commonly  held  is  that  which  was  suggested  above,  viz.,  it  is  a  secondary  com- 

230 


DIATESSARON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  25 

translation  of  T's  gospel,  and  is  entirely  untrustworthy  for  the  recovery 
of  details  of  text.  The  very  fact  that  its  author  did  not  translate  the 
text  of  D,  but  used  the  corresponding  passages  of  the  Vulgate  Latin 
text,  is  enough  to  deprive  this  witness  of  any  decisive  weight  in  esti- 
mating the  value  of  any  particular  reading.  The  additional  fact  of  the 
undisputed  incompleteness  of  F,  when  taken  together  with  the  fore- 
going, makes  it  quite  impossible  to  regard  F  as  either  a  satisfactory  or 
complete  basis  for  investigation  {cf.  Hj.,  p.  58).  This  conclusion 
leaves  A  as  the  only  remaining  extant  witness  which  we  can  use  for  this 
purpose.  This  witness  is  a  translation  made  directly  from  the  original 
language  of  D,  and  preserves  D,  so  far  as  can  be  determined,  without 
any  large  omission.  It  is  sufficiently  satisfactory  and  complete,  there- 
fore, to  serve  as  a  basis  with  which  to  compare  whatever  evidence 
Aph.  and  E  have  to  offer  in  determining  the  reliability  of  any  given 
passage.  In  such  a  comparison,  however,  Aph.  and  E  are  generally  to 
be  regarded  as  better  witnesses  than  A.  There  are  two  reasons  for 
such  an  estimate  :  (i)  both  Aph.  and  E  are  much  older  than  A;  (2) 
their  readings,  together  and  independently,  show  themselves  less  influ- 
enced than  those  of  A  by  the  known  sources  of  the  transmissional  cor- 
ruption of  D.  Accordingly,  if  the  testimony  of  E  or  Aph.  for  a  given 
passage  is  contrary  to  that  of  A,  the  latter  must  be  rejected,  unless 
there  is  some  specific  reason  for  setting  aside  the  former.  Such  rea- 
sons are  sometimes  to  be  appealed  to ;  for  example,  the  testimony  of 
E  or  Aph.  should  be  rejected  when  it,  rather  than  that  of  A,  has  been 
influenced  by  known  tendencies  of  transmissional  corruption.  We 
may,  therefore,  use  A  as  our  basic  text,  but  we  must  give  due  con- 
sideration to  Aph.  and  E. 

But  we  must  go  further  if  we  are  to  have  perfect  confidence  in  our 
text.  A  study  of  the  text  of  D,  whether  as  represented  by  E  or  A,** 
in  comparison  with  the  text  of  Syriac  and  Arabic  versions,  and  with 
variants  of  the  Greek  gospels;  the  consideration  of  the  possible 
unfaithfulness  of  the  Arabic  translator ;  and  the  possibility  of  corrup- 
tion in  the  transmission  of  A  itself,  create  the  necessity  of  considering 
how  far  the  text  of  D,  as  we  possess  it,  may  be  trusted. 

pilation  made  by  arranging  sections  of  the  Vulgate  Latin  text  of  the  gospels,  in  the  order  in  which  the 
corresponding  material  stands  in  D.  But  the  work  was  clumsily  done  and  T's  order  has  not  always  been 
followed  with  fidelity.  Indeed,  there  are  many  serious  departures.  (See  H. a,  pp.  17-20;  Z.a,  pp.  298-313.) 
Later  writers  have  not  agreed  with  Zahn  (p.  310)  that  "  innerhalb  einzelner  Perikopen  ist  selbst  die 
feinere  Mosaikarbeit  des  Originals,  wenn  auch  unvollkommen,  in  F  wiederzuerkennen."  Zahn's 
opinion  is  based  upon  a  fragmentary  comparison  of  E  and  F.  Had  he  been  able  to  use  A,  his  conclusions 
could  scarcely  have  been  different  from  that  of  scholars  who  have  written  since  Ciasca's  publication  of  A 
(c/.Hj.,p.58). 

22  For  an  investigation  with  E  as  the  basis,  see  Z.a,  I,  pp.  220-38 ;  with  A  as  the  basis,  see  Sel. 

231 


26  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Such  consideration  leads  at  once  to  an  estimation  of  the  amount  of 
influence  exerted  upon  the  text  of  D  by  Syriac  versions  which  are 
admittedly  later  than  D.  There  has  been  noted  a  marked  tendency 
to  harmonize  the  text  of  D  with  these  versions,  in  particular  P.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  any  passage  whose  phenomena — deviations 
from  our  gospel  text — are  the  same  as  those  of  the  corresponding 
passages  of  these  versions  must  be  set  aside,  so  far  as  our  study  is  con- 
cerned, since  any  deviation  from  the  Greek  gospels  which  may  appear 
in  such  a  passage  may  be  due  to  the  influence  of  these  later  versions, 
not  to  Tatian.  I  have  collated  all  the  passages  used  in  this  paper, 
and  their  variations  from  the  gospels  can  in  no  case  be  referred  to  the 
influence  under  discussion.  For  collation  with  P,  I  have  used  the 
Syriac  text  of  Pusey.  A  comparison  with  S*  is  impossible,  since  there  is 
no  certainly  attested  witness  for  the  gospels  of  this  version.  The  only 
information  of  such  a  witness  that  we  possess  may  be  stated  in  two 
sentences.  First,  Bernstein  {^Das  Evangelium  des  Johannes,  1853, 
referred  to  by  Nestle  in  the  article  "Syriac  Versions"  in  Hastings's 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible)  q\3\u\%  that  the  text  of  this  version  exists  in 
Cod.  A2  of  the  Bibliotheca  Angelica  at  Rome.  Second,  Isaac  N.  Hall 
published  in  1884  a  work,  Syriac  Manuscript  Gospels  of  a  Pre-Hark- 
lensian  Version,  etc.,  maintaining  ="3  that  there  were  manuscripts  in  this 
country  that  contain  the  gospels  of  S*^.  Such  information,  however, 
furnishes  no  accessible  text  of  S*  for  the  gospels.  In  spite  of  the  con- 
sequent impossibility  of  a  comparison  with  this  version,  however,  no 
great  uncertainty  will  attend  our  results.  S***  never  exerted  a  large 
influence  in  any  direction,  so  far  as  the  gospels  are  concerned. 
Witness  its  failure  to  be  preserved,  and  the  fact  that  the  Harklensian 
revision  of  it  entirely  usurped  its  place.  Moreover,  by  the  sixth  cen- 
tury, in  which  S*  had  its  origin,  and  probably  its  brief  life,  D  had 
probably  been  driven  from  public  use,  at  least  in  other  than  Nestorian 
churches  {cf.  Hj.,  pp.  2%-^^  passim)  and,  since  in  this  case  D  would  be 
less  often  copied,  there  would  be  relatively  small  chance  of  any  cor- 
ruption of  D.  Still  further  improbability  of  any  considerable  influence 
of  S*  upon  D  may  be  inferred  by  analogy  from  the  very  small 
influence  of  S^,  of  which  mention  is  made  below.  There  is,  therefore, 
almost  no  probability,  not  to  say  possibility,  that  S*  affected  D  in 
transmission  to  any  appreciable  extent.  We  need  not,  accordingly, 
be   deeply   concerned    at    our    inability    to    make    use    of   it.      With 

83  C.  R.  Gregory,  Textkritik  des  Neuen  Testaments,  II,  501-5,  does  not  commit  himself  with 
reference  to  Hall's  view,  but  implies  that  he  thinks  it  is  plausible. 

232 


DIATESSAEON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         27 

respect  to  S^  Sellin  (Sel.,  p.  237)  says  that  its  influence  may  be 
detected  "wenn  auch  nur  in  geringem  Grade."  In  his  treatment 
of  the  matter,  he  presents  only  twenty  passages  (Tabelle  III)  from 
the  whole  range  of  D  in  which  there  may  be  an  influence  of  S^.''''  None 
of  these  passages  will  be  found  among  those  which  we  use  below  in 
illustrating  T's  method.  Our  results  have  been  still  further  guarded 
by  an  examination  of  all  passages  in  the  light  of  the  variants  of 
S^  which  are  noted  in  Tisch.'^s  Accordingly,  in  the  passages  which 
are  used  below  to  indicate  T's  literary  habits  we  may  be  sure  there  are 
no  traces  of  the  influence  of  S^.  With  regard,  therefore,  to  the  har- 
monization of  D  with  all  three  of  the  later  Syriac  versions,  our  results 
have  been  safeguarded. 

But  besides  the  tendency  to  harmonize  in  this  way,  there  has  been 
noted  another — the  filling  in  of  words,  phrases,  and  sentences  origi- 
nally omitted  in  D,  and  the  excising  of  words,  phrases,  and  sentences 
originally  contained  in  D  to  conform  in  both  cases  to  the  Syriac 
separate  gospels.  The  knowledge  of  this,  however,  can  affect  our 
results  in  only  one  direction.  It  cannot  shake  our  confidence  in  the 
passages,  which  we  have  used,  for  these  passages  present,  not  agree- 
ments, but  disagreements  with  the  text  of  the  separate  gospels.  It  can 
lead  only  to  the  very  obvious  conclusion  that  where  D  differs  from 
the  text  of  the  Greek  gospels  either  by  omission  or  addition,  and  such 
differences  cannot  be  explained  as  due  to  any  specific  textual  influ- 
ence, they  are  to  be  ascribed  to  Tatian,  for  it  is  contrary  to  the 
tendency  of  the  scribes  to  let  such  differences  remain.  We  are  aided, 
then,  rather  than  limited,  in  our  work  by  the  knowledge  of  this 
tendency.  We  may  pass  on,  therefore,  at  least  without  any  fear  that 
it  can  vitiate  our  results.  Indeed,  we  may  feel  confident  that  our 
results  are  not  invalidated  by  any  corrupting  influences  proceeding 
from  the  later  Syriac  versions. 

There  is  ever  present,  however,  the  possibility  that  A  has  been 
corrupted  by  influences  to  which  it  is  liable  as  an  Arabic  version  of  D. 
As  a  translation  A  is  but  one  remove  from  the  original,  for,  as  noted 
above,  recent  scholars  of  prominence,  with  the  exception  of  Harnack, 
agree  that  T  composed  D  in  Syriac.^^     Moreover,  the  faithfulness  of 

24  Sellin  refers  to  the  Harklensian  version  as  the  Philoxenian,  apparently  following  the  suggestion  of 
the  title  of  White's  edition  of  S9.  He  nowhere  states  that  he  is  using  White,  but  seems  to  reveal  it  in 
this  note:  •'  P=Phil. ;  wo  die  Uebersetzung  White's  falsch  ist"  (p.  240). 

25Tischendorf  designates  SO  in  the  edition  of  his  work  which  I  have  used  as  syr  P.,  but  c/.  Gregory, 
Prolegomena,  p.  824,  footnote. 

26  "Es  darf  hiernach  als  bewlesen  angesehen  werden,  dass  das  dem  Tatian  zugeshriebene  Diates- 
saron  von  Haus  aus  ein  syrisches  Buch  war"  (Z.a,  p.  238;  cf.  Hj.,  pp.  22,  23). 

233 


28  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

this  direct  translation  is  attested  by  those  who  have  investigated  the 
subject  thoroughly.  Harnack,  to  be  sure,  throws  suspicion  upon  this 
faithfulness.  He  describes  A,  along  with  two  other  elaborations  of  D 
(see  Hrk.*",  I,  pp.  495  f.)  —  the  Latin,  viz.,  F,  and  the  alleged  Greek 
fragments  which  are  supposed,  but  without  warrant,  to  have  been  the 
basis  of  Nachtigall's  translation  —  as  sehr  fret.  It  is  quite  impos- 
sible, however,  to  believe  that  this  opinion  rests  upon  such  thor- 
ough investigation  as  the  great  Berlin  scholar  is  wont  to  prosecute 
before  reaching  his  conclusions.  How  he  could  arrive  at  such  a 
conclusion  as  that  just  stated,  when  there  is  no  Greek  witness*"^  to  D, 
which  on  his  theory  would  be  the  original,  is  certainly  difficult  to 
conceive.  The  mere  fact  that  he  classes  A  with  F  without  any  distinc- 
tion—  not  to  mention  the  association  of  A  with  Nachtigall's  work  — 
and  estimates  their  value  as  translations  in  the  same  generalizing 
terms,  will  show  at  once  to  anyone  who  studies  the  subject  that  his 
statements  are  based  on  no  thorough  digestion  of  the  facts  gained  by 
such  investigation.  Sellin  says  (Sel.,  p.  243)  of  the  Arabic  trans- 
lator :  "Der  Uebersetzer  verfahrt  also  nicht  knechtisch  aber  treuT  In 
this  judgment  Hjelt  concurs  (Hj.,  pp.  65-70).  Moreover,  in  addition 
to  the  opinion  of  scholars,  further  confidence  is  given  by  a  considera- 
tion of  the  excellent  abilities  of  the  well-known  translator,  Ibn-at- 
Tayib.  This  confidence,  and  the  fact  that  each  passage  used  below 
has  been  examined  to  determine  that  its  peculiarities  are  not  due  to 
the  exigencies  of  the  Arabic  language,  free  our  conclusions  from  un- 
certainty with  regard  to  the  possibility  that  the  text  has  been  corrupted 
by  translation.  But  the  possibility  of  a  corruption  of  the  text  of 
A  under  the  influence  of  Arabic  versions  has  still  to  be  considered. 
The  variant  readings  of  the  two  manuscripts  of  A  show  no  marked 
tendency  to  harmonize  A  with  the  Arabic  versions.^^  Indeed,  no 
specific  similarity  between  the  text  of  A  and  the  peculiar  readings  of 
these  versions  has  been  pointed  out  by  scholars.  But  whatever  the 
possibility  of  such  harmonization,  its  effect  has  been  eliminated  for  us 
by  a  comparison  of  our  passages  with  Arabic  variants  noted  in  Tisch. 
As  in  the  comparison  with  the  Syriac  versions,  the  principle  has  been 
adopted  here  also,  that  a  possible  influence  of  the  version  is  enough  to 
exclude  passages  agreeing  with  it  in  any  of  its  peculiarities.  As  con- 
cerns the  transmission  of  A,  as  affected  by  other  influences  than  the 

ay  The  translation  — published  by  Ottmar  Nachtigall  (1523)  — of  alleged  Greek  fragments  can 
scarcely  be  used  as  such.  Harnack  himself  implies  doubt  as  to  the  character  of  this  work  (see  Hrk.c,  I, 
pp,  495,  496).     For  a  full  discussion  see  Z.a,  pp.  313-28. 

28  But  cf.  the  adverse,  but  unsupported  statement  of  Hj.,  p.  61. 

234 


OF  TH 

UN!VER€ 

OF 


DIATESSAKON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  29 

Arabic  versions  of  the  separate  gospels,  it  seems  to  have  been  free 
from  any  considerable  impurity.  To  be  sure,  the  two  manuscripts 
of  A,  when  compared  with  each  other,  show  some  different  readings, 
but  these  are  quite  unimportant  in  character,  since  they  can  generally 
be  explained  by  appealing  to  the  simplest  kinds  of  scribal  error  and 
affect  only  a  very  few  of  the  passages  used  below.  Such  as  they  are, 
they  are  consumable  in  Csc,  and  in  every  passage  which  we  consider 
their  bearing  upon  our  conclusions  may  be  estimated.  Whether, 
therefore,  we  consider  the  value  of  A  as  a  translation,  or  the  trans- 
mission of  A  under  the  possible  influence  of  Arabic  versions  and 
other  sources  of  corruption,  we  are  able  to  proceed,  with  proper 
limitations,  free  from  any  appreciable  uncertainty  because  of  the 
possibility  of  corruptions  in  A  from  such  influences  as  might  have 
been  exerted  upon  it  as  an  Arabic  translation. 

Now  that  we  have  considered  Syriac  versions  and  Arabic  influ- 
ences, there  remains  in  Column  II,  2,  above,  (p.  11)  but  one  item  — 
Greek  variants.  There  is  always  the  possibility,  though  this  is  often 
slight,  that  any  extant  variation  of  the  Greek  gospels  may  have  influenced 
the  transmission  of  D  in  any  or  all  of  its  witnesses.  This  has  made 
it  necessary  to  compare  every  passage  with  the  variants  to  the  text 
of  the  Greek  gospels  in  Tisch.,  and  to  exclude  all  whose  peculiarities 
agree  with  any  of  these  variants. 

The  conclusion  that  we  may  now  draw  with  reference  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  transmission  of  the  texts  of  D  upon  our  results  is  this  :  A 
has  preserved  a  text  which  must  be  limited,  if  results  based  upon  it  are 
to  be  recived  with  confidence.  But  it  is  possible  to  make  every  limita- 
tion that  safety  demands,  and  such  limitations  have  been  made  in  this 
investigation.  The  portions  of  text  which  have  been  used  below  are  in 
all  probability  absolutely  free  from  every  kind  of  influence  which  can  be 
proved  or  inferred  to  have  corrupted  D  in  transmission. 

But  if  the  certainty  that  our  text  is  pure  is  to  be  paralleled  by  a 
similar  certainty  as  to  the  conclusions  derived  in  our  study  of  that 
text,  we  must  give  some  consideration  to  the  items  of  Column  I  above. 
The  larger  part  of  our  work  is  to  determine  what  phenomena  in  our 
text  are  due  to  T's  literary  method.  It  can  be  accomplished  only 
when  we  have  eliminated  all  the  phenomena  due  to  the  possible  influ- 
ence of  the  other  two  sources  —  the  variants  of  the  Greek  gospels,  and  of 
the  Sinaitic  and  Curetonian  Syriac  versions  —  upon  the  texts  which 
Tatian  used  as  a  source.  A  comparison  of  the  text  of  D  with  the  cor- 
responding  portions   of   the   Greek   gospels   will   reveal   how  far  T 

235 


30  HISTOKICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES' 

deviates  from  his  sources,  provided  these  deviations  cannot  be  attributed 
to  some  outside  influence  such  as  those  discussed  above.  In  such  a 
comparison,  however,  we  cannot  confine  ourselves  to  any  particular 
form  of  the  Greek  text,  but  must  take  into  account  every  extant 
variation  of  any  given  passage  ;  for  we  cannot  be  absolutely  sure  that 
any  such  variant  was  not  in  T's  exemplars."*  Any  deviations  that 
remain  after  taking  into  account  these  variants  must  be  admitted  not 
to  be  due  to  T's  Greek  sources.  There  is,  nevertheless,  one  further 
consideration.  The  four  gospels  differed  from  each  other.  This  fact 
makes  it  impossible  to  decide  in  some  instances  whether  certain  devia- 
tions of  D  from  the  text  of  a  gospel,  which  at  a  given  point  is  his  chief 
source,  are  really  due  to  T,  or  are  to  be  attributed  to  another  of  the  gospels. 
In  such  a  case  we  cannot  tell  whether  T  has  changed  his  one  source, 
or  has  simply  mixed  material  from  two  or  more.  It  is  necessary, 
therefore,  to  proceed  on  the  basis  that  every  passage  in  D  that  is  like 
any  one  of  the  sources  must  be  assigned  to  that  source.  This  may 
eliminate  true  examples  of  T's  method  of  alteration  —  with  our  method 
of  procedure  we  still  have  illustrations  of  conflation  —  but  it  is  the 
safest  course  to  pursue.  This  is  the  last  limitation  with  regard  to  T's 
Greek  exemplars  that  we  need  to  make. 

We  may  pass  on,  then,  to  consider  those  passages  of  D  in  which 
there  is  agreement  with  the  text  of  the  S'  and  S^  The  chrono- 
logical relation  of  these  versions  to  D  is  still  sub  judice^  But  what- 
ever the  outcome  of  the  investigation  of  this  relation  may  prove  to  be, 
it  cannot  affect  our  discussion.  If  we  suppose  D  later  than  S^  and  S*", 
and  that  T  used  them  for  his  work,  we  must  exclude  all  variations  of  D 
which  agree  with  these  versions  as  not  due  to  T's  literary  method  but 
to  his  exemplars.  Or,  if  we  suppose  D  to  be  older  than  S^  and  S"",  we 
have  to  reckon  the  agreeing  passages  as  at  least  possibly  harmonized 
with  later  versions  and  so  for  the  sake  of  certainty  exclude  them,  as 
illustrations  of  T's  method.  In  other  words,  these  versions  must  be 
viewed,  on  our  second  supposition,  as  bearing  the  same  relation  to  D 
as  do  P,  S  '^,  and  S  ^ ;  and  must  be  treated  accordingly.  We  are  there- 
fore in  either  supposition  under  the  necessity  of  excluding  these  pas- 
sages.    Accordingly,  the  quotations  from  D  used  below  have  been  col- 

29  On  this  ground  it  makes  no  practical  difference  what  edition  of  the  Greek  texts  is  quoted  below, 
since  only  those  passages  have  been  used  that  have  no  variants  for  the  words  affecting  the  illustration. 
Tischendorf's  text  has  as  a  matter  of  fact  been  quoted  as  the  logical  accompaniment  of  the  use  of  his 
apparatus.     (See,  however,  note,  p.  60.) 

30  The  latest  statement  on  this  question  is  that  of  Hjelt,  who  concludes  that  the  text  of  D  indicates 
that  it  originated  after  S  s,  but  before  S  c.     For  a  summary  of  opinions  see  N. 

236 


DIATESSARON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         3l 

lated  with  S*  and  S",  and  the  necessary  exclusions  have  been  made.^' 
This  limitation  made,  we  have  left  in  our  text  only  phenomena  due  to 
T's  literary  method. 

The  results  of  the  entire  discussion  of  the  text  of  D,  as  regards 
detailed  readings,  may  be  summarized  in  the  statement  of  a  few  prin- 
ciples to  be  applied  in  the  use  of  each  passage  cited  below.  In  every 
case  the  testimony  of  all  the  witnesses  —  save  that  of  F,  which  "  hat 
.  .  .  .  natiirlich  so  gut  wie  nichts  zu  bieten"  (Hj.,  p.  58)  —  must  be 
considered  and  the  limitations  discussed  above  applied.  A,  however, 
is  the  basis.  The  other  documents  are  to  be  used  as  corroborative  or 
as  checks.  Where  A  is  supported  by  E  and  Aph.  we  are  on  quite 
certain  ground.  The  reading  is  almost  equally  certain  where  A  is 
supported  by  either  of  the  other  two  when  the  non-corroborating  wit- 
ness is  silent.  A  unsupported  is  trustworty  if  E  and  Aph.  are  silent, 
and  if  the  limitations  noted  above  are  diligently  applied.  The  com- 
bined testimony  of  A  and  Aph.,  and  sometimes  the  independent 
evidence  of  A,  if  unquestioned  on  other  grounds,  cannot  be  rejected 
because  opposed  to  E,  for  Ephraem's  looseness  in  quoting  is  notori- 
ous (H.^,  pp.  18-25),  and  because  E  sometimes  shows  corrupting 
transmissional  influences  where  the  others  do  not.  Thus  any  reading 
may  be  confidently  accepted  if  it  has  the  support  of  A,  Aph.,  and  E  ; 
or  of  A  with  either  E  or  Aph.  in  the  absence  of  adverse  testimony 
from  one  or  the  other;  or  of  A  alone  in  the  absence  of  contrary  evi- 
dence ;  or  of  A  and  Aph.  against  E  ;  or  sometimes  of  A  against  E. 
The  application  of  these  principles  leaves  almost  no  margin  for  error 
in  the  details  of  the  text.  We  may  be  sure,  therefore,  that  we  have  as 
great  certainty  in  our  use  of  details  as  in  that  of  general  order. 

4.  The  method  of  procedure  to  be  followed  in  our  discussion  has 
been,  for  the  most  part,  already  incidentally  indicated  in  the  preceding 
investigation  of  our  text.  Some  further  notes  will  be  useful.  The  Greek 
quotations  herein  used  are  from  Tischendorf's  j5^.  VIII. ^  Critica  Major 
{cf.  footnote,  p.  30).  No  Arabic  or  Syriac  texts  have  been  printed. 
The  passages  quoted  from  A  are  taken  from  Hogg's  translation,  which 
is  better  than  either  Ciasca's  Latin  or  Hill's  English  renderings  Hill's 
is  directly  dependent  upon  Ciasca's  —  and  is  therefore  the  best  existing 
translation  of  A  in  an  easily  accessible  language.  The  translation  in 
each  of  the  passages  quoted  has  been  verified,  and  but  slight  and  few 
changes  have  been  found  necessary.  References  to  Syriac  texts  may  be 
tested,  by  any  who  do  not  use  the  Syriac  itself,  by  examining  the  Latin 

.  31  The  texts  used  in  this  collation  are  (i)  Cur.,  (2)  Ben.,  and  (3)  Lew. 

237 


32  HISTOKICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

translation  of  P  accompanying  the  edition  of  that  version,  which  is 
mentioned  above  in  a  footnote  and  in  the  bibliography ;  the  English 
rendering  of  Cureton  accompanying  his  edition  of  the  Old  Syriac ; 
and  the  English  translation  of  S  %  which  has  been  made  by  Mrs.  Lewis, 
and  which  accompanies  her  retranscription  of  some  of  the  pages  of  this 
version.  The  reference  numbers  to  A  have  been  explained  above. 
In  the  right-hand  margin  of  the  pages  of  Hogg's  work  are  printed 
the  numbers  assigning  the  portions  of  text  to  the  several  gospels, 
which  numbers  appear  in  the  Arabic  text  as  printed  by  Ciasca.  Cau- 
tion is  necessary,  however,  for  these  references  are  not  always  exact  in 
details.  Examination  is  in  every  case  necessary  to  determine  the 
correctness  of  the  assignment. 


238 


CHAPTER  I. 
TATIAN'S  PREFERENCE  FOR  ONE  SOURCE  OR  ANOTHER. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  proceed  with  the  investigation  of  the 
manner  in  which  T  treated  his  sources  in  composing  D,  and  on  the 
basis  of  such  an  investigation  to  determine  the  degree  of  similarity 
between  his  method  and  that  which  according  to  the  documentary- 
theory  of  the  relation  of  the  synoptic  gospels  to  one  another,  was 
employed  by  the  authors  of  the  resultant  gospels.  The  bulk  of  our 
work  will  be  concerned  with  T's  method.  This  must  be  determined  first. 
A  comparison  of  it  with  that  ascribed  to  the  synoptists  will  be  reserved 
for  the  last  chapter. 

The  first  step  in  our  investigation  will  be  to  discover  whether  Tatian 
gave  primary  authority  to  one  of  his  sources  or  to  another,  and  if  so, 
to  which  one.  Zahn  (Z.%  pp.  260-63)  favors  the  view  that  he  followed 
John  most  closely,  and  this  opinion  is  concurred  in,  but  apparently 
without  independent  investigation,  by  Hill  and  B.  W.  Bacon  (see  H.% 
p.  27,  and  Ba.).  On  the  other  hand,  G.  F.  Moore  claims  that  this  opin- 
ion is  not  correct,  but  rather  Tatian  follows  Matt,  (see  Mo.).  Zahn's 
view  has  been  overstated  by  Hill  and  Bacon,  and  apparently  misappre- 
hended by  Moore.  Zahn  says  :  "Er  hat  seine  Schema  vom  Gang  der 
offentlichen  Wirksamkeit  Jesu,  wie  gezeigt  wurde  und  eigentlich  selbst- 
verstandlichist,  sowie  Jemand  den  Versuch  einer  Verarbeitung  aller  vier 
Evangelien  macht,  hauptsa,chlich  aus  Johannes  gewonnen"  (p.  261). 
But  the  context  shows  quite  clearly  that  Zahn  hardly  meant  more  than 
that  Tatian  got  from  John  his  chronological  data  for  the  construction 
of  his  work.  He  implies  this  quite  distinctly  by  the  statement,  which 
occurs  a  few  lines  below  the  passage  quoted  above,  viz. :  "Also  mit  einem 
Wort  das  ganze  chronologische  Fachwerk  hat  er  aus  Johannes."  Out- 
side of  these  data,  according  to  Zahn,  preference  was  given  no  more  to 
John  than  to  the  other  evangelists.  "Aber  dem  Johannes  wie  den 
Synoptikern  gegeniiber  geht  er  von  der  Voraussetzung  aus,  dass  jeder 
Evangelist  sei  es  aus  Unkenntnis  des  geschichtlichen  Sachverhalts,  sei 
es  in  Riicksicht  auf  sachliche  Verwandtschaft,  und  lehrhafte  Zweckmas- 
sigkeit  vielfach  eine  andere  Anordnung  als  die  der  zeitlichen  Abfolge 
der  Ereignisse  gewahlt  habe."  Yet  these  passages  (and  perhaps  simi- 
lar remarks)  have  been  interpreted  to  mean  that,  not  only  in  the  gen- 
239]  33 


34  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

eral  chronological  scheme  based  on  the  data  of  the  feasts,  but  in  details 
of  arrangement  as  well,  T  followed  John  quite  rigidly.  On  this  under- 
standing of  Zahn  —  or  rather  misunderstanding — Bacon  has  maintained 
that  the  apparent  changes  in  the  order  of  Johannine  material  in  D  are 
not  changes  at  all,  but  reflect  the  order  of  John  in  T's  exemplar.  He 
contends  that  in  this  order  there  is  external  evidence  for  that  arrange- 
ment of  the  fourth  gospel  which,  on  internal  evidence,  certain  modern 
scholars  have  proposed  as  original  for  the  fourth  gospel.  Such  are  the 
views  which  have  been  held  with  respect  to  Tatian's  attitude  toward  his 
several  sources. 

To  arrive  at  a  correct  conclusion  as  to  whether  T  preferred  one 
source  consistently,  it  will  be  necessary  to  set  forth  the  evidence  and 
let  the  foregoing  opinions,  or  any  others,  stand  or  fall  in  the  light  of 
it.  The  gospel  of  John,  on  account  of  the  views  connected  with  it,  will 
be  treated  separately.    The  synoptic  gospels  may  be  considered  together. 

The  evidence  regarding  these  latter  is  abundant  and  clear.  Only 
samples  of  it  need  be  cited.  Mark  is  preferred  to  Matthew  in  A 
20:17-37.  Thus  we  have  Matthew  subordinated.  Matt.  8:14-17 
{=  A  6  :  48-52)  is  brought  in  D  to  the  same  position  which  is  given 
to  the  parallel  material  in  Mark  and  Luke,  and  the  Matthean  account 
of  the  healing  of  the  paralytic,  who  was  borne  by  four,  is  similarly 
subordinated,  since  it  has  the  same  position  as  in  Mark  and  Luke.  On 
the  other  hand,  Matthew's  testimony  controls  the  placing  (An:  24 — 
12:32)  of  Matt.  8:18  —  9  :  26  =  Mark  4:35  —  5  :  43  =  Luke  8:22- 
56  -|- Luke  9:  57^,  59-62  (this  last  being  introduced  in  a  striking  way), 
since  all  this  material  is  given  before  Mark  3:31  —  4 :  20  and  its  Lukan 
parallel.  Thus  Mark  and  Luke  are  subordinated  to  Matthew.  Luke 
alone  is  likewise  subordinated  to  Matthew  in  the  internal  structure  of 
the  account  of  the  temptation.  All  three  synoptics  are  subordinated 
to  T's  general  plan  by  his  giving  to  (Matt.  8:2-4  =  )^'  Mark  i  :  41- 
45a  =  Luke  5  :  12-16,  a  position  (A  22  : 1-8)  quite  original  with  himself. 
Other  examples  of  this  variety  of  preference  and  subordination  could 
be  given,  but  it  is  unnecessary.  It  is  clear  enough  from  these  that  no 
one  of  the  synoptists  is  given  constant  preference.  A  graphic  idea  of 
T's  treatment  of  the  gospels  in  this  respect  can  be  gotten,  almost  at  a 
glance  from  H.%  Appendix  II,  where  he  has  printed  in  t'/a/us  the  num- 
bers referring  to  gospel  material  which  is  represented  by  parallels 
only  (especially  if  Appendix  I  be  compared).  If  some  of  the  passages 
there  given  be  examined  along  with  those  presented  above,  it  will  be 

39  Not  used  in  T's  conflation, 

240 


DIATESSAKON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  35 

found  that  T's  preferences  now  for  one  gospel,  now  for  another,  extend 
both  to  details  within  sections  and  to  the  order  of  the  sections.  Since 
this  is  true  of  the  subordination  of  Matthew  as  well  as  of  that  of  Mark 
and  Luke,  G.  F.  Moore's  view  must  be  pronounced  incorrect.  Tatian 
prefers  Matthew  no  more  than  Mark  or  Luke  as  his  constantly  pre- 
eminent source.  The  result  of  a  consideration  of  the  synoptic  gospels 
is,  therefore,  quite  clear. 

To  determine  T's  attitude  toward  Johannine  material,  a  much 
more  detailed  investigation  is  necessary.  It  will  be  conducive  to 
clearness  to  prosecute  the  study  in  two  stages,  the  first  in  regard  to 
the  order,  and  the  second  in  regard  to  the  inner  composition  of  sec- 
tions. With  respect  to  order,  Zahn  is  correct  in  saying  that  T  got  his 
chronological  data  from  John.  But  such  a  statement  has  no  more 
significance  than  to  say  that  Tatian  accepted  the  historical  validity  of 
John's  statements  concerning  the  feasts.  It  is  difficult  to  see  from 
which  other  of  his  sources  T  would  have  derived  these  items  if  he 
wanted  to  use  them.  But  even  this  small  amount  of  accuracy,  which 
attaches  to  the  statements  of  Zahn  and  those  who  follow  him,  must  be 
granted  only  with  a  modification.  As  is  shown  by  the  analytical  out- 
line of  D  given  in  the  next  chapter,  the  scheme  of  feasts  is  recon- 
structed by  T.  The  Passover  of  John  2  :i3  is  not  the  first  Passover 
in  Jesus'  career,  but  the  second.  Accordingly,  it  must  be  said  that, 
though  T  does  draw  the  items  concerning  the  feasts  from  the  only 
one  of  his  sources  which  contained  them,  nevertheless  he  subordi- 
nates even  these  to  a  plan  which  he  himself  has  conceived  after  a  study 
of  the  gospel  history.  Furthermore,  even  in  their  reconstructed  order 
T  does  not  use  these  items  as  the  articulations  of  the  parts  of  his 
gospel.  The  language  of  Zahn,  therefore,  even  when  interpreted  in 
the  least  rigid  way,  conveys  an  impression,  as  it  apparently  did  to  Hill 
and  Bacon,  not  supported  by  the  evidence  of  D  itself.  It  is  scarcely 
true  that  "das  ganze  chronologische  Fachwerk  hat  er  aus  Johannes." 
Zahn's  opinion,  therefore,  must  be  modified,  and  even  when  modified, 
scarcely  approaches  an  exact  expression  of  the  truth  concerning  T's 
attitude  toward  his  sources. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  this.  Bacon  has  used  Zahn's  statements  as  the  basis 
of  his  own  supplementary  view.  Assuming  that  he  had  correctly 
understood  Zahn's  language,  and  that,  so  interpreted,  it  was  correct, 
he  has  proceeded  without  any  detailed  support  of  his  general  ground 
to  draw  his  conclusion.  This  conclusion  assumes  that  T  was  not 
skilful  enough  to  see  the  fitness  of  the  order  which  he  gives  to  the 

241 


36  HISTOKICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

several  sections,  and  therefore  the  order  given  must  be  that  of  his 
exemplar.  But  such  an  assumption,  even  when  flanked  hy  Bacon's 
argument  that  no  other  church  father  ever  perceived  this  fitness,  is 
scarcely  permissible.  Tatian's  acuteness  with  regard  to  the  only 
specific  passage  concerned  will  be  discussed  below,  but  here  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  in  many  other  directions  as  well  it  is  quite  remarkable.  He 
has  succeeded  quite  as  well  as  most  modern  harmonists  {cf.  H.%  App. 
I),  and  better  than  many.  He  may  not  have  solved  his  problems  to 
the  satisfaction  of  everyone  any  more  than  harmonists  usually  do,  but 
that  he  in  general  perceived  the  problems,  no  one  who  reads  the 
Diatessaron  can  deny.  It  is  not  enough  to  show,  as  Bacon  thinks  he 
has  done,  and  as  indeed  is  here  and  there  true,^^  that  Tatian  was  not 
as  acute  as  some  modern  scholars  in  regard  to  this  point  or  that.  Such 
procedure  does  not  prove  inherent  incapacity.  To  be  sure,  T  was  not 
omniscient,  but  does  this  prove  that  he  was  unable  to  see  what,  save 
for  Bacon's  assumption,  the  arrangement  of  Johannine  material  in  D 
shows  that  he  did  see  ?  If  a  man's  acuteness  is  to  be  judged  by  his 
ability  to  see  everything,  and  if  he  is  to  be  condemned  without  further 
hearing  because  he  fails  here  and  there^  what  modern  scholar's  acumen 
will  stand  unimpeached  under  the  test  ?  If  T  was  dull,  this  must  be 
proved,  not  assumed.  Such  evidence  as  Bacon  produces  is  insufficient 
against  that  which  meets  one  on  nearly  every  page  of  D,  and  which 
can  be  seen,  almost  at  a  glance,  from  the  outline  in  the  next  chapter. 

But,  aside  from  this  lack  of  positive  evidence  for  the  support 
of  the  assumption  that  T  was  dull,  there  are  difficulties  which  lead 
to  a  negation  of  Bacon's  proposition  which  he  bases  on  Zahn's 
statements.  These  difficulties  are  entirely  overlooked  by  Professor 
Bacon,  yet,  in  the  light  of  the  evidence,  are  quite  insuperable.  For 
his  theory  to  be  valid,  the  order  of  Johannine  material  in  D,  the 
"external  evidence,"  must  agree  with  the  reconstructed  order  of 
John  supported  by  the  internal  evidence  of  the  fourth  gospel.  This 
agreement  must  be  complete,  else  the  theory  will  fall  to  the  ground, 
since,  if  it  be  incomplete,  there  is  no  way  of  determining  where  Tatian 
changed  the  order  of  his  exemplar,  and  where  he  did  not.  Admit 
that  he  changed  any  passages,  and  you  must  admit  more  than  the 
possibility  of  his  having  changed  others.  Since  this  is  true,  the 
difficulties  mentioned  above  show  two  things :  first,  that  in  one 
direction    the  "external    evidence,"  which   Bacon  claims,  proves   too 

33  Note  in  particular  Tatian's  failure  to  perceive  the  difficulty  which  exists  between  the  synoptic  and 
Johannine  accounts  as  to  the  date  of  the  crucifixion. 

242 


DIATESSAEON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PBOBLEM         37 

much;  second,  that  in  another  direction  it  does  not  prove  enough. 
It  proves  too  much,  for  Tatian's  arrangement  differs  at  many  points 
from  an  order  which  might  be  expected  from  the  internal  evidence  of 
the  fourth  gospel.  And  not  only  does  the  order  presented  by  D 
differ  from  the  modern  scholars'  reconstructed  arrangement  of  John, 
but  this  order  of  D  has  in  it  phenomena  (abruptness  and  lack  of 
transition)  which,  according  to  modern  critical  science,  would  lead 
immediately  to  a  reconstruction  of  it.  For  example,  how  can  we 
grant  the  presence  in  the  original  John  of  such  abruptness,  such  lack 
of  transition,  as,  on  the  hypothesis  that  D  preserves  the  original 
Johannine  order,  exists  between  John  6:71  and  4:4?^^  How  could 
John  4:45^  have  connected  John  5  147  and  John  7:1?  How  could 
we  explain  the  presence  of  John  5:1  (A  30:31)  between  John  7  :3i 
(A  28:32)  and  the  repetition  of  this  verse  at  A  34:48,  or  even  its 
presence  between  the  first  occurrence  of  7  :3i  and  the  next  Johannine 
verse  (7  132)  of  A,  in  case  we  were  able  to  satisfy  ourselves  as  to  the 
repetition  ?  Or,  even  if  we  eliminate  John  5  :  i  by  supposing  that  this 
verse  of  A  (30:31)  is  to  be  assigned  to  John  2:13,35  nevertheless  the 
presence  of  any  such  statement  would  raise  the  same  difficulty.  Or, 
if  we  could  take  an  additional  step  —  which,  however,  we  cannot — and 
rid  our  text  of  any  statement  such  as  this  which  implies  a  journey 
from  and  a  return  to  Jerusalem  between  the  utterances  of  two  closely 
connected  verses  (John  7:31  and  7:32),  how  could  we  explain  the 
still  remaining  difficulty  of  the  connection  of  John  7:31  (A  28:32) 
and  John  2:14  (A  32:1)?  As  we  look  at  this  cumulative  pyramid 
of  impossibilities  connected  with  this  one  point  —  not  to  speak  of  the 
other  occurrences  of  abruptness  —  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the 
insuperableness  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  Bacon's  view.  But 
even  were  we  able  to  give  satisfactory  explanation  to  these  matters, 
we  would  still  have  to  face  the  quite  impossible  task  of  explaining 
how  the  original  order  of  John  in  T's  exemplar,  got  into  its  present 
arrangement  in  our  fourth  gospel.  Many  a  modern  scholar  has  been 
staggered  by  his  inability  to  give  explanation  of  how  the  material 
of  the  fourth  gospel  became  disarranged  from  the  order  of  John 
reconstructed  by  critics,  and  got  into  that  of  our  extant  gospel.     But 

3*  D  presents  Johannine  material  in  the  following  order.  John  i  :  1-5  -|-  (i :  6  omitted)  i  :  7-28 
4- 1  :  29-31  +  I  :  32-34  -I-  I  :  3S-5i  +  2  :  i-ii  +  3  :  22  —  4  :  3a  +  4  :  46-54  +  2  :  233-25  -}-  6  : 1-71  (  with 
this  section  synoptic  material  is  conflated)  -(-4  :  4-45a  +  5  :  1-47  +  4  :  45^  +  7  :  i  +  7  :  2-ioa  -|-  7  :  lob- 
3i4-5:i(?)  +  2: 14-22  +  3  : 1-21  -|-  7  :  31-52  (  note  the  repetition  of  vs.  31  ).  From  this  point  on 
there  is  no  difference  between  T's  order  and  that  of  our  fourth  gospel.  The  +  sign  indicates  intervening 
synoptic  material. 

35  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  njatter  see  chap,  vii,  below. 

243 


38  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

in  the  case  of  a  change  from  the  order  presented  by  D,  the  problem  is 
far  more  difficult.  Bacon  attempts  no  explanation.  Whether,  there- 
fore, we  consider  simply  the  existence  of  the  deviations  of  D's  order, 
which  are  not  paralleled  in  that  made  on  the  internal  evidence  of  John, 
or  the  nature  of  these  deviations  in  themselves  and  in  relation  to 
the  present  order  of  the  fourth  gospel,  we  reach  the  irresistible  con- 
clusion that  Bacon's  hypothesis  will  not  stand.  And  not  only  is 
this  true.  The  lack  in  the  "external"  evidence  prevents  it  from 
proving  enough.  In  all  the  points  involved,  save  one,  viz.,  the 
transposition  of  John,  chaps.  5  and  6,  the  order  preserved  in  D 
differs  from  that  constructed  on  the  internal  evidence  of  the  fourth 
gospel.  In  the  face  of  this  fact,  therefore,  as  well  as  before  the 
consideration  of  the  number  and  nature  of  D's  deviations,  the  view 
which  we  are  opposing  falls. 

But  against  this  conclusion  it  may  be  argued  that  in  the  transposi- 
tion of  chaps.  5  and  6  at  least  we  have  "external"  corroboration  of 
the  view  of  some  modern  scholars.  But  the  validity  of  this  objection 
cannot  be  maintained.  If  it  is  shown  that  T  changed  his  exemplar 
constantly,  then  it  is  certainly  probable  that  in  this  one  place  the 
transposition  is  due  to  his  conception  of  the  fitness  of  the  order,  not 
to  his  exemplar.  As  said  above,  ex  hypothesis  no  changes  are  to  be 
admitted,  or  all  differences  of  order  are  to  be  attributed  to  T's 
alterations.  This  general  argument,  moreover,  is  strengthened  by 
several  examples  of  Tatian's  acuteness.  The  first  is  his  clear  recogni- 
tion that  the  agreement  of  much  of  the  discourse  material  in  Matthew 
and  Luke  was  significant.  Such  passages  T  assigned  to  the  same 
occasion ;  not,  as  many  do,  to  different  connections.  He  brings 
together  the  Matthean  and  Lukan  versions  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  and  much  other  material  as  well.  i^Cf.  H.%  App.  I  and  II.) 
In  this  matter,  at  least,  he  antedates  many  moderns;  and  this  fact 
disposes  of  Bacon's  general  argument  against  T's  acuteness.  In 
addition  to  this,  however,  Tatian  shows  himself  keenly  alert  at  pre- 
cisely the  time  when  he  is  determining  the  position  which  he  will  give 
to  chap.  5.  The  visit  to  Jerusalem  of  John,  chap.  5,  has  been  deter- 
mined by  Tatian  to  have  preceded  that  of  John  2:13.  He  therefore 
is  compelled  to  transpose  the  clause,  John  4 :  45^,  to  a  position  after 
chap.  5,  because  until  this  latter  has  been  presented  there  has  been 
given  no  account  of  Jesus'  being  at  Jerusalem.  In  placing  chap.  6  he 
has  done  precisely  what  we  should  expect  of  him.  He  has  conflated 
it  with  the  parallel  synoptic  material  and,  having  done  this,  has  given 

244 


DIATESSARON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  39 

to  the  whole  account  a  position  suggested  by  his  synoptic  sources. 
Therefore,  in  the  light  of  his  treatment  of  these  two  chapters,  there 
is  no  more  ground  for  Bacon's  view  than  in  the  case  of  any  part  of 
John.  The  transposition  just  discussed  falls  into  line  with  all  the  rest 
of  the  evidence,  and  if  it  did  not,  it  would  hardly  be  sufficient  ground 
for  the  theory  that  Bacon  has  advanced. 

The  sum  of  the  whole  matter  is  that  Bacon  has  assumed  too  much 
on  the  basis  of  a  misunderstanding  of  Zahn's  language.  The  facts^** 
brought  out  in  our  discussion  are  too  considerable  and  important  to 
allow  the  acceptance  of  his  theory.  They  clearly  show  that  Tatian 
reconstructed  his  Johannine  material,  rather  than  that  he  persistently 
followed  the  order  of  the  fourth  gospel. 

This  conclusion  with  reference  to  general  order  is  paralleled  by  that 
which  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  evidence  concerning  T's  use  of  Johan- 
nine material  in  the  inner  composition  of  sections.  An  investigation 
of  the  passages  of  A  where  T  has  identified  John's  accounts  with  those  of 
the  synoptists  will  at  once  reveal  the  subordination  of  the  former  to  the 
latter.  These  passages  are  as  follows  :  the  account  of  John  the  Baptist's 
ministry  (A  3  :  37 — 4:  27;  cf.  A  4:  28-41  and  5  :  4-20);  the  feeding  of 
five  thousand  (A  18:21-43);  the  triumphal  entry  (A  39:  18-45);  the 
anointing  at  Bethany  (A  39:1-17),  the  Last  Supper  (and  connected 
events  and  speeches,  A  44  :  10 — 47  :  44) ;  the  arrest  of  Jesus  (A  48  :  22- 
43) ;  events  immediately  following  the  arrest  (A  48  :  44 — 49  :  18) ;  the 
trial  before  Pilate  (A  49  :  43 — 5 1:6);  the  crucifixion  ( A  5 1 : 1 5 — 5  2:13); 
and  the  burial  (A  52  :  21-44).  In  every  case,  save  one,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  a  complete  preference  for  John,  and  in  almost  all  of 
the  instances  there  is  decisive  evidence  of  a  subordination  of  Johan- 
nine to  synoptic  material  or  to  T's  own  general  plan.  The  usual 
method  of  procedure  was  to  use  one  of  the  synoptics  for  the  frame- 
work of  a  narrative  or  discourse,  to  fit  other  material  into  this,  and  to 
employ  from  John  in  this  process  only  such  as  is  peculiar  to  the  fourth 
gospel.  The  evidence  leads  us  to  a  conclusion  precisely  the  reverse  of 
the  proposition  that  T  preferred  John  to  the  other  gospels. 

The  above  views  concerning  T's  attitude  toward  his  sources,  as 
regards  both  the  general  order  and  inner  composition  of  sections, 
must  therefore  be  pronounced  incorrect,  or  modified  according  to  the 
evidence  which  has  now  been  presented. 

The  result  of  the  investigation  with  which  this  chapter  began  has, 
for  the  most  part,  been  incidentally  shown  in  the  foregoing  refutation 

36  Bacon  nowhere  presents  the  facts,  and  that  he  had  them  before  him  is  hard  to  believe. 

245 


40  HISTOBIOAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

of  current  views.  We  may  here  notice  the  specific  phenomena  of  T's 
method  in  choosing  material  from  his  several  sources.  T  followed  no 
gospel  constantly  as  his  primary  source.  But,  on  the  basis  of  a  study  of 
all  four  gospels,  he  adopted  a  general  plan  to  which  he  subordinated  the 
material  furnished  by  each  of  his  sources.  This  subordination  extends 
to  both  the  general  order  and  the  inner  composition  of  sections.  As 
regards  his  use  of  the  synoptic  gospels,  it  is  to  be  said  that  sometimes 
he  used  a  given  source  without  alteration,  excepting  a  few  expressions 
here  and  there;  in  some  other  passages,  he  added  to  his  preferred 
source  from  his  rejected  source  only  such  material  as  was  not  in  the 
former; 37  and  in  still  other  cases  he  simply  substituted  one  account  for 
the  other,  with  little  or  no  change ;  vide,  e.  g.,  the  last  two  items  of  the 
account  of  the  temptation  (A  4  :  43 — 5  :  3),  where  Matthew  is  the  source 
for  one  and  Luke  for  the  other  ;  or  consider  the  substitution  (A  13:  39 — 
14:  14)  of  Luke  7  :  18-35  ^^^  Matt.  11:  2-19,  with  almost  no  Matthean 
influence,  save  in  the  addition  of  Matt.  11:12-15,  which  is  peculiar  to 
the  first  gospel.  The  gospel  of  John  is  treated  in  general  in  precisely 
the  same  way  as  those  of  the  synoptists.  In  both  the  choice  of  material 
and  its  arrangement  T  is  guided  by  his  own  historical  judgment  as  to 
what  is  correct.  His  choice  of  Johannine  material  illustrates,  for  the 
most  part,  the  phenomenon  of  the  addition  of  material  peculiar  to  one 
source,  which  addition  is  made  to  that  source  which  is  being  generally 
followed  at  any  given  point.  Almost  any  conflation  of  John  with  the 
other  gospels  will  illustrate  this;  e.  g.,  A  39  : 1-17.  There  is  also  the 
phenomenon  of  introducing  long,  unbroken  sections  from  a  single 
source.  Such  are  the  characteristics  of  Tatian's  preferences  in  the  use 
of  his  sources. 

37  Examples  of  this  and  the  other  phenomena  mentioned  may  be  seen  in  the  passages  of  the  synop- 
tists referred  to  above  in  the  discussion  of  order  (p.  34),  as  well  as  in  almost  any  conflation  of  A. 


246 


CHAPTER   II. 
THE  PLAN  OF  THE  DIATESSARON. 

The  results  of  the  investigation  of  the  preceding  chapter  serve  as  a 
basis  for  the  determination  of  what  Tatian's  plan  was.  Until  we  had 
reached  some  conclusion  as  to  what  general  attitude  toward  his  sources 
he  assumed,  we  were  in  no  position  to  present  the  scheme  of  his  work, 
as  D  itself  reveals  it.  Now,  however,  we  may  proceed  without  fear  of 
being  confronted  with  conclusions  drawn  from  any  of  the  views  pre- 
sented above.  The  apparent  plan  of  T's  gospel  is  as  follows : 
I.  Introductory Ai:i — 3:36 

1.  The  eternal  Logos i:i-5 

2.  Birth  and  childhood  of  John  the  Baptist  -         -         -         -         1:6-81 

3.  Birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus 2  :  i — 3  :  36 

a)  Annunciation  to  Joseph 2:1-8 

d)   Infancy  of  Jesus 2: 9-47 

a)    Birth 2:9-28 

/S)   Circumcision 2: 29 

y)   Presentation  in  the  temple     -         -         -         -         -     2 :  30-47 

c)  Childhood  of  Jesus 3:1-36 

a)   Visit  of  the  magi 3:1-12 

/3)    Flight  into  Egypt  and  return  to  Nazareth  -         -  3  :  13-23 

7)  Life  of  Nazareth 3:  24 

8)  Visit  to  Jerusalem     -         -       .  -         -         -         -  3 :  25-35 
e)   Growth  of  Jesus 3: 36 

II.  Events  Introductory  to  the  Career  of  Jesus  -        -  3  :  37  —  5  :  20 

1.  John  the  Baptist's  advent  and  preaching  -         -       3  :  37  —  4  :  27 

2.  Baptism  of  Jesus 4:28-41 

3.  Temptation  of  Jesus 4:42  —  5:3 

4.  Call  of  the  first  disciples 5  :  4-20 

III.  Jesus' Public  Ministry 5:21 — 38:47 

(The  account  in  this  section  gives  a  series  of  journeys  each  of  which 
follows  a  period  of  activity  at  the  place  from  which  Jesus  starts  and  to 
which  he  returns.) 
I.    Journeys  with  Cana  as  headquarters         .         -         -        5:21 — 6:35 

period  I. 

a)  Jesus' arrival  at  Cana,  and  first  miracle         -         -  5:21-32 

d)  His  widespread  fame 5  :  33»  34 

c)   Visit  to  Nazareth  ^ 5^35-41 

247]  4X 


42  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

d)  Beginning  to  preach -       5  :  42-43 

e)  Call  of  the  four 5:44  —  6:4 

f)  Continuation  of  tour  in  Judea    -         -         -         -         -         6:  5-19 

PERIOD    II.  , 

a)  Return  from  Judea  to  Cana,  and  performance  of  second 

miracle 6: 20-34 

b)  Preaching  tour  in  Galilee 6:35 

2.    Journeys  with  Capernaum  as  headquarters     -         -        6  :  36  —  27  :  47 

PERIOD   I. 

a)  Removal  to  Capernaum,  performance  of  miracles,  call 

of  Matthew 6 :  36-54 

b)  Tour  of  Galilee        .--.-..  7:1-10 

PERIOD    II. 

a)  Return  to  Capernaum,  and  curing  of  the  paralytic  borne 

by  four 7:1 1-24 

b)  Call  of  Levi  and  feast  at  his  house    -         -         -         -  7:25-36 

c)  Sabbath  controversies 7^37-53 

d)   Withdrawal  from  Capernaum 8:1-17 

e)   Call  of  the  Twelve 8:18-25 

/)    Sermon  on  the  Mount 8:26 — 11:2 

g)  Descent  from  the  mount 11:3 

PERIOD    III. 

a)  Return  to  Capernaum,  the   centurion's   servant,   the 

widow  of  Nain's  son 11: 4-23 

b)  Pressing  call  for  disciples 11:24-30 

c)  Departure  to  the  other  side  of  Galilee,  and  stilling  of 

the  tempest 11:31-37 

d)  The  Gadarene  demoniac 11:38-52 

PERIOD   IV. 

a)  Return  from  Gadara  to  Capernaum    -         -         -         -       12:1-32 

b)  Blind  men  and  a  dumb  demoniac  cured         -         -         12:33-39 

c)  Sending  out  of  the  Twelve         .         -         -         .      12:40 — 13:29 

d)  Visit  to  Mary  and  Martha 13^30-35 

e)  Visit  of  John  the  Baptist's  messengers         -         -         -     13:36-43 

f)  Discourse  on  John  the  Baptist         -         -         -  13:44—14:14 

g)  Warnings  to  scribes  and  Pharisees     -         -         -         -     14:15-42 

h)   Return  of  the  Twelve 14:43,44 

i)  Jesus  at  Simon  the  Pharisee's     -         -         -         -      14:45 — 15:11 

J)  Widespread  belief  in  Jesus 15:12-14 

k)   Sending  out  of  the  Seventy         .         -         -         .      15:15 — 16:12 
1)   Effort  of  Jesus' mother  and  brothers  to  see  him         -     16:13-18 

248 


DIATESSARON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         43 

m)  Tour  of  Galilee 16:19-21 

n)  Parables  by  the  seaside 16:22 — 17:35 

6)  Rejection  at  Nazareth '7 ''36-5  3 

p)  Death  of  John  the  Baptist 18:1-20 

q)  Retreat  of  Jesus  from  Herod's  power      -         -         .         18:21-24 

r)  Feeding  of  the  five  thousand 18:25-46 

s)  Jesus' walking  on  the  sea        -         -         -         .  18:47 — 19:13 

/)  General  healing  activity 19:14,15 

PERIOD   V. 

a)  Return  to  Capernaum  and  rebuke  of  sign-seeking    19: 16 — 20:1 1 

^)  Jesus  at  dinner,  unwashed  hands         -         -         .         -  20:12-45 

c)  Withdrawal  toward  Tyre  and  Sidon,  the  Syro-Phoeni- 

cian  Woman 20:46-58 

d)  Journey  through  the  Decapolis 21:1-7 

e)  Continuation  of    this   journey  through  Samaria;   the 

Samaritan  woman  3^ 21:8-46 

/)  Return  to  Galilee  (but  not  to  Capernaum)           -         -  21:47-49 

g)  Healing  of  a  leper  in  a  Galilean  village          -         -  22:1-8 

K)  Journey  to  Jerusalem;  the  infirm  man  at  Bethesda     -  22:9-55 

i)  Return  to  Galilee ;  a  mountain  miracle  -         -         -  23:1-4 

y)  Feeding  of  the  four  thousand iy.^-\i 

fi)  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  demanding  a  sign    -         -  23:13-25 

/)  Blind  man  at  Bethsaida 23:26-30 

in)  Peter's  confession  at  Caesarea-Philippi   -         -         -    23:31 — 24:1 

n)  The  transfiguration 24:2-24 

o)  Descent  from  the  mount,  and  reception  of  warning 

concerning  Herod 24:25-29 

p)  Demoniac  boy 24:30-47 

q)  Jesus' forecast  of  his  death  and  resurrection    -         -  24:48-52 

PERIOD    VI. 

a)  Return  to  Capernaum ;  ambition  of  the  Twelve  -         25:1-3 

b)  The  stater  in  the  fish's  mouth        .         .         -         .  25:4-7 

c)  Jesus  questioned  as  to  the  relative  greatness  of  the 

Twelve;  discourse  on  humility  ^^     -         _         -         -       25:8-26 

d)  Journey  into  Perea ;  question  about  divorce     -         -         25:27-42 

e)  Jesus  and  the  children 25:43-46 

/)   Parables  of  Grace 26:1-33 

g)    Parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward ;  parable  of  the  Tal- 
ents        26:34—27:29 

38  Zahn  designates  this  thus :  "  Reise  durch  Samarien  [nach  Jerusalem]"  (Z.a,  p.  258).    But  this  is 
a  journey  from  the  Sidonian  region  to  Galilee. 

39 The  arrangement  of  these  sections  is  interesting.     Item  a)  brings  Jesus  and  the  Twelve  back  to 
Galilee,  while  b)  is  strikingly  inserted  between  a)  and  c), 

^49 


44  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

h)   Return  to  Galilee  (not  to  Capernaum;  cf.  27:  40),  and 

discourses  on  the  slain  Galileans  and  the  fig  tree     -     27:  30-39 

i)  The  woman  healed  on  the  sabbath         .         .         .         27:40-47 

3.    Journeys  to  and  fro  between  Perea  and  Jerusalem    -        28:1 — 38:47 

PERIOD  I.   JOURNEY  TO  ATTEND  A  FEAST. 

d)  Jesus' colloquy  with  his  brothers  .         -         -         -         28:1-8 

b)  Journey  through  Perea  to  feast  at  Jerusalem  -         -  28:9-41 

c)  Return    to    Perea ;    rich    young  man ;    discourse   on 

riches 28:42—29:42 

d)  Jesus  at  the  chief  Pharisee's  house  -         -  29:43 — 30:30 

PERIOD   II.      JOURNEY   TO   ATTEND   FEAST   OF   UNLEAVENED   BREAD. 

d)   The  journey -         -      30:31 — 31:52 

a)    The  start 30:31 

/3)   Cleansing  the  lepers 30:32-39 

7)  Jesus' forecast  of  his  death  -  ,  -  -  30:40-45 
5)  Request  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  -  -  -  -  30:46-52 
c)   Consequent  anger  of  the  Ten    -         -         -         -  31:1-14 

f)  Jesus  and  Zaccheus  at  Jericho       -         -         -         -     31:15-24 

17)    Blind  Bartimaeus 31:25-35 

Q)   Parable  of  the  Ten  Shares 31:36-52 

h)   At  Jerusalem  (during  and  subsequent  to  the  feast)       32:  i — 37: 42 

a)    First  day  of  the  feast 32:1-23 

Cleansing  of  the  temple ;  widow's  two  mites ;  parable  of 
the  Pharisee  and  Publican ;  retirement  to  Bethany. 

/S)   Second  day 32:24 — 33:1 

Cursing  the  fig  tree;  visit  of  Nicodemus;  retirement  to 
Bethany. 

7)  Third  day  .----.  33  =  2—34:45 

Lesson  of  the  fig  tree ;  challenge  of  Jesus'  authority ;  his 
reply ;  plots ;  questions  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees. 

8)  Teaching  of  subsequent  days ;  its  results       -         -     34:46-53 

e)  Seventh  day 35:1 — 37:24 

Attempt  to  arrest  Jesus;  question  of  Jesus  to  Pharisees; 
discourse  on  light;  man  born  blind;  discourse  on  the  Good 
Shepherd. 

f)  Discourse  of  Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Dedication       -     37:25-42 
c)   Journey    from      Jerusalem     to     Perea;      raising     of 

Lazarus 37:43—38:41 

PERIOD  III.      THE  LAST    JOURNEY    TO   JERUSALEM       -  -  38:42-47 

IV.  Closing  Events  of  Jesus'  Career         -        -        -       39:1 — 55:17 

I.    Passion  Week 39:1  —  52:44 

ct)   Anointing  at  Bethany 39:1-17 

250 


DIATESSARON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  45 

b)  Triumphal  entry 39:18-45 

c)  Jesus  in  the  temple 40:1-4 

d)   Visit  of  Greeks 40:5-23 

e)  Jesus*  daily  retirement  to  Bethany      -         -         -         -40:24,25 

f)  Jesus' arraignment  of  the  Pharisees         -         -  40:26 — 41:15 

g)  Beginning  of  plots 41:16-26 

h)  Saying  concerning  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  and 

its  consequences 41:27-32 

/)  Discourse  on  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem       -          41^33 — 43^58 

j)  Jesus' prediction  of  death;  plots;  Judas's  complicity           44:1-9 

k)  Washing  of  the  feet  of  the  disciples       -         -         -         44: 10-33 

/)  Passover  supper  and  farewell  discourses     -         -      44  =  34 — 47=44 

m)  Betrayal  and  arrest  of  Jesus            -         -         _         -           48:1-43 

n)    Flight  of  the  disciples 48:44-48 

0)   Peter's  first  denial 48:47-55 

p)   Examination  before  Annas 49:1-6 

q)    Peter's  second  denial 49:7-18 

r)  Trials   before    Caiaphas,    Pilate,    Herod,    and    Pilate 

again 49=^9 — 5^=6 

s)  Judas's  remorse 51:7-14 

/)   Crucifixion 51:15—52:23 

u)    Burial 52:24-39 

v)   The  guard 52:40-44 

2.    Life  after  death 52:45—55=17 

a)  Resurrection 52  =  45 — 53  =  3^ 

b)  Subsequent  appearances 53  =  32 — 54  =  48 

c)  Ascension 55:1-17 

Such  is  the  schematic  conception  of  Jesus*  life  which  T  seems  to 
have  had.  He  seems  to  have  followed  his  sources  for  the  main  stages 
of  the  gospel  history,  allowing  rearrangement  only  within  the  larger 
divisions.  But  he  deviates  from  them  in  one  remarkable  instance. 
After  omitting  all  account  of  a  distinct  early  Judean  ministry,  he 
creates  a  later  one,  which  consists  in  a  non-canonical  Passover  week 
and  an  implied  sojourn  in  Jerusalem  through  the  following  winter 
(A  30:31  —  37:42). 


251 


CHAPTER  III. 
ALTERATIONS  IN  ORDER. 

A  PERUSAL  of  the  plan  in  the  preceding  chapter  reveals  at  once  the 
truth  of  Zahn's  remark,  already  quoted,  but  which  will  bear  repetition 
here:  "Aber  dem  Johannes  wie  den  Synoptikern  gegeniiber  geht  er 
[T]  von  der  Voraussetzung  aus,  dass  jeder  Evangelist,  sei  es  aus 
Unkenntnis  des  geschichtlichen  Sachverhalts,  sei  es  in  Riicksicht  auf 
sachliche  Verwandtschaft  und  lehrhafte  Zweckmassigkeit  vielfach 
einer  andere  Anorduung  als  die  der  zeitliche  Abfolge  der  Ereignisse 
gewahlt  habe"  (Z.%  p.  261).  Indeed,  the  extent  to  which  T,  on  the 
basis  of  his  conception  of  the  evangelists'  method  of  dealing  with  their 
material,  modified  the  order  of  his  sources  is  probably  even  greater 
than  Zahn  supposed.  There  may  be  produced  examples  of  every 
possible  kind  of  deviation  from  the  order  of  our  gospels  —  changes 
in  the  order  of  paragraphs,  of  sentences  and  clauses,  and  of  words  and 
phrases. 

There  are  numerous  alterations  in  the  order  of  paragraphs.  A 
most  striking  example  is  the  distribution  of  Matt.,  chap.  t8,  through 
A  25:8 — 27:29.  The  following  will  indicate  this:  Matt.  18:1  = 
A  25:  8;  Matt.  18:  3  =  A  25:  10;  Matt.  i8:6-8=A  25:  13-18;  Matt. 
18:  9«  =  A  25  :  20;  Matt.  i8:i3=:A  26  :5;  Matt.  i8:i4  =  A  26:  7; 
Matt.  18:  23-35  =  A  27  :  1-13;  Matt.  18 :  i5-22  =  A  27  :  16-23;  Matt. 
18:  10,  11=  A  27:  28,  29.  The  remainder  of  the  sections,  which  are 
involved  here,  is  partly  made  up  from  material  parallel  to  the  omitted 
parts  of  Matt.,  chap.  18,  but  the  great  mass  of  remaining  narrative  is 
not  thus  from  parallel  sources,  and  this  material  gives  to  the  several 
parts  of  Matt.,  chap.  18,  an  entirely  different  setting  from  that  which 
they  have  in  the  first  gospel.  Another  remarkable  instance  of  altera- 
tion of  order  is  found  in  A  22  :  1-7.  Here  is  put  the  account  of  the 
healing  of  a  leper  just  after  that  of  the  journey  through  Samaria  (which 
ends  with  John  4 :  45^)  and  just  before  the  journey  to  Jerusalem 
recorded  in  John  5:1.  The  last  synoptic  material  used  by  T  preceding 
this  account,  which  is  taken  from  Mark,  chap,  i,  and  Luke,  chap.  5,  is 
Mark  7  :  31-37,  and  the  next  following  is  Matt.  15  :  29-38,  the  last  part 
of  which  is  parallel  to  the  Markan  material  immediately  following  Mark 
7  •  3^~37-    This  arrangement  gives  the  incident  a  position  different  from 

46  [252 


DIATESSARON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC    PROBLEM  47 

that  in  any  of  the  sources,  viz.,  between  Mark  7:37  and  8:1.  Again, 
the  addition  of  John  i  :  35/  to  the  end  of  the  account  of  the  tempta- 
tion (A  5  :  4)  gives  an  impression  of  the  sequence  of  events  not  gained 
by  the  independent  consideration  of  John  i  :  35,  43;  2:1.  Another 
change  is  that  of  the  position  of  the  visit  of  Jesus  to  Mary  and  Martha. 
From  its  collocation  in  D  with  events  transpiring  in  Galilee,  and  from 
the  absence  of  any  indication  that  Jesus  left  Galilee  to  make  this  visit, 
the  conclusion  is  naturally  drawn  that  T  thought  of  Martha  and  Mary 
as  living  in  Galilee,  or,  at  least,  that  he  failed  to  see  this  implication 
of  his  arrangement.  Just  why  T  inserted  this  account  here  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  say;  but  this  much  is  quite  certain  :  the  procedure  is  in  line 
with  the  subordination  of  Luke's  Perean  section  to  Mark  and  Matthew, 
generally  characteristic  of  T.  As  already  indicated  in  the  previous 
chapter,  T  has  made  the  journey  through  Samaria  (A  21 :  8ff.)  to  be, 
not  from  Judea  to  Galilee,  but  from  Tyre  and  Sidon,  through  the 
Decapolis.  The  general  direction  and  the  destination  of  the  journey 
are  not  changed,  but  the  point  of  its  departure  and  the  period  of 
Jesus'  activity  in  which  it  was  made  are  altered.  The  warning  given 
Jesus  concerning  Herod  (A  24:27-29),  put  by  Luke  in  the  Perean 
period  (Luke  i3:3iff.),  is  introduced  just  after  the  account  of  the 
descent  from  the  mount  of  transfiguration,  and  just  before  that  of  the 
healing  of  the  demoniac  boy.  Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  instance 
of  the  phenomenon  now  being  illustrated  is  the  displacement  already 
referred  to,  viz.,  the  bringing  together  of  the  synoptic  and  Johannine 
accounts  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple,  of  the  visit  of  Nicodemus,  and 
also  of  much  of  the  material  which  our  gospels  present  in  connection 
with  the  Passion  Week ;  and  the  making  of  this  combined  matter  into 
an  account  of  a  week  of  activity  and  of  a  long  sojourn  at  Jerusalem  — 
the  beginning  of  this  account  being  connected  with  a  Feast  of 
Unleavened  Bread,  the  second  in  the  career  of  Jesus  as  conceived  by 
T.''°  Still  another  illustration,  and  one  almost  incapable  of  explana- 
tion, is  found  in  T's  position  for  the  Johannine  account  of  the  washing 
of  the  disciples'  feet,  viz.,  before  the  account  of  the  preparation  for  the 
paschal  supper  (A  44:  10-33).  Other  examples  need  not  be  given. 
These  will  suffice  to  show  the  freedom  with  which  T  treated  his  sources 
with  respect  to  the  arrangement  of  sections. 

These  disarrangements  of  paragraphs,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
and  as  has  incidentally  appeared,  cause  differences  in  the  order  of 
events.     But  there  are  also  alterations  in  the  order  of  events  not  so 

40  See  chap,  vti,  the  discussion  of  A  30:  31. 

253 


48  HISTOKIOAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

caused.  For  example,  the  omission  of  the  first  part  of  Matt.  2  :  i 
(A  3  :  i),  and  the  substitution  for  it  of  the  simple  "And  after  that," 
give  a  unique  sequence  of  events.  By  this  change  the  visit  of  the 
magi  is  represented  as  having  taken  place  after  the  return  to  Nazareth 
(and  yet  the  visit  is  paid  at  Bethlehem).  This  would  seem  to  imply 
that  T  held  the  view  afterwards  maintained  by  Ephraem  and  other 
Syrian  Fathers,  possibly,  at  least  in  part,  on  the  basis  of  precisely  this 
passage  in  D,  that  the  visit  of  the  magi  occurred  when  Jesus  was  two 
years  old  (see  Har.%  pp.  37-39).  Only  by  attributing  to  T  such  a 
view  can  there  be  explained  what  otherwise  is  a  very  crude  and  incon- 
gruous collocation  of  material,  one  not  paralleled  for  crudity  elsewhere 
in  D.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  there  should  probably  be  ascribed  to  T, 
on  this  hypothesis,  the  idea  that  Jesus'  parents  returned  to  Bethlehem. 
Another  alteration  in  order  not  to  be  accounted  for  merely  by  the 
rearrangement  of  sections  is  to  be  seen  in  A  6 :  46.  The  isolation  of 
this  verse  is  due  to  T's  failure  to  identify  Matthew  and  Levi.  The 
order  of  these  events,  irrespective  of  changes  in  the  order  of  sections, 
deviates  from  that  of  the  gospels.  This  shows  quite  clearly  that  T 
felt  free  to  rearrange  as  he  saw  fit  both  sections  of  material  and  the 
sequence  of  events. 

There  is  a  similar  freedom  in  the  treatment  of  sentences  and  clauses. 
In  A  5  :  43  Markan  material  is  put  into  Matthean  order.  Examine  the 
following : 

Mark  1:15.  A  5:43.  Matt.  4:i7(J. 

6ti    ireirX-^purai   6   Kaipbs        "Repent  ye  and  believe        fieravoeiTe'  ijyyiKev  yb,p  if 
Kal  ijyyiKev  rj   /SatriXefa  rod    in  the  gospel.     The  time  is    paaCKda  rCov  oiipavQv. 
deov' fi€Tavo€CT€  KalinaT€iJ€T€    fulfilled    and   the    kingdom 
iv  ry  eiayyeXLtp.  of  heaven  has  come  near." 

A  comparison  of  these  three  columns  quickly  reveals  the  alteration 
in  D.  Again,  A  14:41,  42  shows  Matt.  12  :  22,  23  to  have  been  trans- 
posed to  a  position  after  Matt.  12  :  37  (=  A  14:  36).  This  transposi- 
tion is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  E,  for  Ephraem  quotes  (M., 
p.  112)  Matt.  12:32  (  —  A  14:31)  before  he  mentions  (M.,  p.  113) 
Matt.  12:22.  Matt.  18:  10,  11  are  transposed  to  a  position  after  all 
the  remaining  material  of  this  chapter  of  the  first  gospel  (A  27:28, 
29).  This  transposition  also  is  supported  by  E  (see  M.,  pp.  164,  165). 
John  12  :  16  (=  A  39:  25)  is  transposed  to  a  position  before  John  12:12 
(=  A  39  :  34),  and  John  12  :  9-1 1  are  put  between  John  12:2  and  12:3 
(=A  39:2-6).  The  latter  transposition  is  supported  by  E,  in  which 
John  12:10  precedes  12:5  (M.,  p.  205).     In  A  49  : 9  a  part  of  Matt. 

254 


DIATESSAKON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PKOBLEM  49 

26  :  73  is  inserted  between  Matt.  26  :  71  and  26  :  72.  Matt.  26  :  59-68 
(  =  A  49  :  21-41)  and  its  parallels  are  transposed  and  made  to  follow 
Matt.  27  :  1/5  (which  is  used  rather  than  Mark  15  :  i).  The  order  of  the 
several  items  of  Mark  11:12-19,  as  it  appears  in  D  (A  32:1-27), 
is  as  follows:  Mark  11:  16  (+  insertion  of  Mark  12:  41-44)4- 11:19^ 
-[-  II  :  i2-i$a. 

Definitely  attested  examples  of  altered  order  of  words  are  com- 
paratively less  numerous.  Almost  all  the  possibilities  in  the  different 
orders  for  words  are  exhausted  by  either  T's  sources,  as  we  possess 
them,  or  by  the  variants  of  their  transmitted  texts.  The  limitations 
which  wc  have  placed  upon  our  text  for  the  sake  of  certainty  preclude, 
therefore,  all  but  a  few  instances.  Under  the  circumstances,  however, 
it  is  surprising  that  there  are  any.  Those  of  which  we  may  be  certain 
are  as  follows : 

{  Luke  1:50,  €ls  7ew4s  koI  7cw4s  tois  <f>oPovfihois  airrbv. 

(A  1:51,  "them  who  fear  him  through  the  ages  and  the  times." 
Luke  9 :  11^,  Kal  Toi>s  xpcfav  ^x<"^as  depairdas  Idro. 
A  18  :26,  "And  he  healed  those  having  need  of  healing." 

Note. — This  example  is  especially  interesting,  since  Luke  9  :  1 1  is  repeated 
with  the  order  of  the  Greek  (</.  A  32  :  23). 

{Mark  10  :  46,  6  vlbs  Tifiatov  BapTi/xahs,  TV(p\6s  Tpo<raiT^s,  iK&drfro  iraph  r^v  6d6v. 
A  31  :  26,  "And  there  was  a  blind  man  sitting  by  the  wayside  begging, 
....  Timaeus,  son  of  Timaeus. 

Note. — The  order  of  A  is  supported  by  E  (M.,  p.  181). 

iLuke  18:  II,  apirayes,  &81K01,  fwixol. 
A  32  :  18,  "the  unjust,  the  profligate,  the  extortioners." 
These  passages  show  that  Tatian  was  capable  of  changing  the  order 
of  words,  and  had  we  more  of  the  certainly  original  text  of  D,  there 
would  in  all  probability  be  a  great  many  more  such  passages. 

The  foregoing  discussion  reveals  that  there  are  in  the  Diatessaron 
examples  of  every  kind  of  change  in  order.  T  has  quite  freely  altered 
the  order  of  paragraphs,  events,  sentences  and  clauses,  and  words  and 
phrases. 


I 


255 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ADDITIONS  AND  OMISSIONS. 

As  WE  take  up  the  consideration  of  additions  and  omissions,  we 
should  remember  what  was  said  above  concerning  the  tendency  of  cor- 
ruption, in  the  transmission  of  D,  to  delete  additions  and  supply 
omissions.  It  was  concluded  that,  unless  there  was  some  specific 
evidence  against  the  passages  that  present  such  phenomena,  all  addi- 
tions and  omissions  must  a  priori  be  ascribed  to  T.  The  following 
examples  have  been  put  to  the  test  in  every  way  that  was  suggested 
in  our  introductory  discussion  of  the  text,  and  they  stand  approved : 

Additions  of  words  and  phrases  are: 

1.  A  6 :  53  =  Mark  i  :  33,  '*of  Jesus." 

2.  A  1 8 : 1 2  =  Mark  6:22,  "of  the  company." 

3.  A  20 :  40  =  Mark  7:19,"  entereth  "  (second  occurrence). 

4.  A  28:45  =  Matt.  19  :  18,  "commandments  "(after  the  relative  pronominal 
adjective). 

5.  A  30 :  13  =  Luke  14  :  18,  "  The  first  said  unto  them,  Say  to  him." 
Note. — The  words  italicized  constitute  the  addition. 

6.  A  29 :  31  =  Matt.  20  :  5,  "And  sent  them  "  (one  word  in  Arabic). 

7.  A  49  :  19  =  Luke  22 :  66,  "all  the  servants." 

8.  A  50  :  42  =  Matt.  27  :  30,  "  from  his  hand." 

9.  A  51  :  6  =  John  19:16,  "according  to  their  wish." 

10.  A  51  :9  =  Matt.  27  :  5,  "and  died." 

Note. — E  supports  this  (M.,  p.  240).     This  addition  has  fallen  away  from  A. 

11.  A  52  :4  =  John  19  :  30,  "everything." 

12.  A  52 :  36  =  Mark  15  :  47,  "that  was  related  to." 

Note. — This  is  possibly  an  interpretation  of  the  Greek  article. 

13.  A  55  :  16  =  Mark  16:  20,  "from  thence." 

There  is  no  need  to  carry  the  list  farther,  though  this  might  be 
done.^'     The  number  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 
Added  clauses  and  sentences  are : 
I.    A  14:  17  =  Matt.  12  :  24,  "which  is  in  him." 

4t  Here,  as  in  some  of  the  other  lists,  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  be  exhaustive.  The  completeness 
of  each  list  will  be  indicated  as  it  is  presented.  The  present  writer  has  himself  collected  numerous  other 
examples,  and  still  others  may  be  gotten  by  the  study  of  Appendices  I-III  of  H.a  These  illustrations, 
however,  must,  if  they  are  to  be  accepted  as  valid,  be  sifted  by  the  processes  used  in  this  discussion.  The 
lists  which  have  been  printed  herein  give  a  sufficient  number  of  examples  to  determine  T's  literary 
methods. 

50  [256 


DIATESSARON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PEOBLEM  51 

2.  A  16:23  =  Matt.  13  :  2,  "and  when  the  press  of  the  people  was  great 
upon  him." 

3.  A  20 :  14  =  Luke  11:39,  "and  ye  think  ye  are  cleansed." 

4.  A  20  :  20  =  Mark  7  :  4,  "what  was  bought." 

5.  A  20:  S2=Matt.  15  12$,  "have  mercy  upon  me." 

6.  A  23  :  25  =  Matt.  16:12,  "which  he  called  leaven." 
Note. — This  is  a  mere  interpretative  addition. 

7.  A  25  :6  =  Matt.  17  :  26,  "Simon  said  unto  him,  Yea.   Jesus  said  unto  him, 
Give  thou  also  unto  them  like  the  stranger." 

Note. — E  supports  this  by  direct  quotation  (M.,  p.  161). 

8.  A  26:  7  =  Matt.  18:14,  "that  have  strayed  and  for  whom  he  seeketh 
repentance." 

Note. — Aph.  (column  354) "♦'  supports  this.  The  Arabic  is,  word  for  word, 
Hke  the  Syriac,  except  that  it  has  instead  of  the  Syriac  participle  a  finite  verb 
("he  seeketh"). 

9.  A  29  :  23  =  Luke  16  :  28,  "  lest  they  also  sin." 
Note, — Aph.  supports  this  reading  (column  907). 

10.  A  31  :  26  =  Mark  10:  46,  "his  name  was." 
Note. — This  has  the  support  of  E  (M,,  p.  181). 

11.  A  48  :  5 1  =  John  18:17,"!  mean  Jesus  of  Nazareth." 

12.  A  48  :  55  =  Matt.  26  :  58,  "of  what  would  happen." 

13.  A  49:  7  =  John  18:25,  "when  Jesus  went  out." 

There  might  be  added  here  at  least  ten  more  examples,  but  this  will 
suffice.     It  is  plain  that  T  added  both  words  and  sentences. 

When  we  pass  from  these  varieties  of  addition  to  that  of  material, 
we  are  on  different  ground.  On  the  whole,  T  seems  to  have  regarded 
the  four  gospels  as  furnishing  all  the  material  that  should  be  used. 
Indeed,  he  may  not  have  had  any  other  extensive  accounts  of  Jesus* 
life.  And  yet  there  are  indications  that  he  added  some  items  from 
sources  outside  of  his  four  main  documents.  If  E  gives  a  more  origi- 
nal reading  (M.,  p.  240)  than  A  51:9,  then  Acts  1:18  probably  influ- 
enced D  at  this  point.  Again,  at  a  point  corresponding  to  A  45  :  16, 
I  Cor.  11:33  was  used  by  T,  if  the  reading  supported  by  Aph.  (column 
518)  is  correct.  There  is  also  evidence  that  T  used  an  apocryphal 
saying  at  a  point  corresponding  to  A  20  :  23.  The  evidence  consists 
in  the  addition  in  E  (M.,  pp.  137,  138)  of  these  words,  "et  qui  blas- 
phemat  Deum,  crucifigatur."  Zahn  thinks  (Z.%  p.  241)  this  is  apocry- 
phal, and  there  is  no  reason  for  saying  that  it  is  not.  The  added 
words  may  be  an  invention  of  T's,  but,  if  so,  they  are  unlike  most  of 

42  All  citations  of  Aph.  refer  to  the  numbers  of  the  Latin  columns  of  Graffin's  edition. 

257 


/ 


52  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

his  additions/3  which  are  usually  interpretative,  or  at  least  may  be 
explained  as  not  unnatural  expansions  of  his  text.  Zahn's  suggestion 
may,  therefore,  be  correct.  But  if  this  view  is  not  correct,  that  con- 
cerning another  passage  in  E  certainly  has  probability.  The  passage 
is  "ex  lumine  super  aquas  exorto  et  ex  voce  de  caelo  delapsa  cogno- 
visset"  (M.,  p.  43;  cf.  Z.%  p.  241).  It  seems  to  indicate  quite  clearly 
that  there  was  in  Ephraem's  exemplar  of  D  some  reference  to  the 
apocryphal  story  concerning  the  light  which  appeared  on  the  waters 
of  the  Jordan  when  Jesus  was  baptized.'^  The  sanction  of  the  story 
for  T's  mind  is  suggested  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  whole  hypothesis 
is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  Justin  Martyr,  whose  pupil  T  was, 
knew  and  used  this  story ."^^  Hill  doubted  the  correctness  of  Zahn's 
suggestion  that  there  was  such  an  item  in  D  (H.%  pp.  36,  37),  but  J.  R. 
Harris  (Har.'',  p.  43)  has  produced  evidence  of  quite  decisive  value  for 
the  settlement  of  the  question.  Ishodad,  a  Syrian  Father,  directly 
ascribes  the  story  to  D.  Zahn's  view,  based  alone  upon  E,  is  thus 
supported  from  this  unexpected  quarter.  To  this  example  of  the  use 
of  extra-canonical  material  we  might  add  T's  use  of  Mark  16:9-20,  if 
we  could  be  sure  that  it  was  not  in  his  exemplar  —  assuming  that  this 
section  is  unauthentic.  But  whether  the  inclusion  of  this  material 
from  Mark  be  regarded  as  an  addition  or  not,  it  is  quite  certain  that 
there  are  traces  of  material  supplied  by  other  sources  than  our  four 
gospels. 

But  Tatian  not  only  added,  he  also  omitted,  material.     Omissions 
of  words  and  phrases  occur  as  follows : 
I.    A  I  :42,  60;  2:9;  4:35;  8:9.     These  passages  correspond  respectively 

to  Luke  I  :  41,  59  ;  2:1;  3:21;  6:12.     In  all  five  of  these  passages  there 

is  omitted  iy^vero. 

Note. —  It  should  perhaps  be  said  that  some  late  manuscripts  also  omit  this 

at  Luke  2:1,  but  the  chance  of  such  a  reading  being  the  source  of  the  phenomena 

of  A  at  this  point  is  so  remote  that  the  example  has  been  allowed  to  stand,  though, 

strictly,  this  is  contrary  to  our  usual  method  of  procedure. 
a.    A  1 :  45  =  Luke  i  :  44,  l8oi>  ydp. 
3.    A  2 :  I  =  Matt.  1:18,  Maplai. 

Note. —  But  E  has  this  word  (M.,  p.  20),  and  this  fact  throws  suspicion  upon 

the  omission,  though  this  suspicion  may  be  dispelled.     Ephraem's  tendency  to 

quote  loosely  and  under  the  influence  of  the  separate  gospels,  as  well  as  the  textual 

43  A  25:6  presents  another  saying  that  might  on  this  same  ground  be  assigned  to  an  apocryphal 
source.     C/.  p.  51. 

44FuL.  gives  the  following  as  containing  the  story:  "the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites,"  "the  Preaching 
of  Paul  [or  Peter],"  "the  Pseudo-Cyprianic  De  Baptismata." 

45  See  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  chap.  88. 

258 


DIATESSARON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         53 

principle  stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  argue  strongly  for  the  correctness 
of  A.  E,  not  A,  seems  to  present  at  this  point  a  text  which  has  fallen  in  with  the 
general  transmissional  tendency  to  fill  in  omissions. 

4.  A  2  :  42  =  Luke  2  :  34,  iv  ry  'lo-paiJX. 

Note. — The  evidence  for  this  omission  is  derived  from  E  (M.,  p.  23).  Ephraem 
gives  a  turn  to  his  comments  on  this  passage  which  would  be  difficult  to  under- 
stand, were  we  to  suppose  these  words  stood  in  his  text.  This  fact  is  quite 
decisive.     Some  manuscripts  omit  iv,  but  none  the  entire  phrase. 

5.  A  4  : 1 2  =  Matt.  3  :  4,  Tcpl  t^v  6a<piip  atJrou. 

6.  A  4  :  35  =  Luke  3:21,  /cai  irpoa-evxofiivov. 

7.  A  7  :  37  =  Matt.  12:1  and  Luke  6  :  i/5,  enWov. 

Note. — The  latter  part  of  this  verse  is  certainly  from  Luke,  for  there  is  no 
reference  in  Matthew  to  rubbing.  The  omission  is,  therefore,  as  indicated.  E 
again  throws  suspicion  upon  this  example  by  quoting  "coeperunt  spicas  evellere 
et  fricare  et  edere"  (M.,  p.  61).  But,  again,  this  may  be  transmissional  corrup- 
tion, particularly  since  P,  which  Ephraem  undoubtedly  knew,  has  this  reading. 

8.  A  21 :  48  =  John  4:44,  ai5T6s. 

9.  A  53  :  26  =  Matt.  28  : 1 1,  iropevofiivuv  8i  airQv  Idoi. 
Note. —  P  omits  Idoi,  but  none  of  the  remainder. 

Omissions  of  clauses  and  sentences  are : 

1.  A  8  :  53-56  =  Luke  12:57,  t/  5^  xai  d^'  iavruv  oi  Kplvere  t6  dUaiov. 
Note. — S^  and  S^  both  omit  rl,  but  nothing  else. 

2.  A  9 :  30  =  Luke  1 1 :  I ,  /cai  iyivero  iv  ry  elvai  ainbv  iv  T&n-ip  tlvI  irpoffevx&pi^vov  w$ 
iiraiffaro. 

Note. —  S*  and  S*^  omit  iyivero  only. 

3.  A  24  : 6  =  Luke  9 :  3 la,  ol  6<f>divTes  iv  56^7/. 

4.  A  30: 32  =  Luke   iy:iia,C,    Kal   iyivero  .   .   .   .  Kal   a&rbs   Si-^pxero  did.   fxiaov 
^a/Mplas  Kal  FaXtXa^as. 

5.  A  32 : 1-27  =  Mark  lliiS,  Kal  .  .  .  .  airov. 

Note. — This  verse  is  entirely  omitted  in  the  rearrangement  of  Mark  ii:  12-19, 
and  the  distribution  of  it  through  the  section  of  A  indicated.  It  should  be  noted 
that  the  parallel  of  the  verse  is  used  at  an  entirely  different  point  (A  34 :  46).  The 
omission  here  is,  nevertheless,  a  true  example  of  the  excision  of  a  verse  from  the 
source  which  was  in  use,  for  it  can  scarcely  be  shown  that  T  regarded  Luke  19  :  47 
as  parallel.  Indeed,  just  the  opposite  conclusion  is  implied  by  the  position  of 
Luke  19  :  47  (A  34  :  46)  relative  to  other  contextual  Markan  matter. 

6.  A  32  : 1 3  =  Mark  1 2  :  42^^,  6  iariv  Ko8pdvT7]s, 

7.  A  32  :  26  =  Matt.  21:19,  Kal  i^Tjpdvdr}  irapaxpvP^  V  ^vkt}. 

Note. —  E  refers  to  the  withering  of  the  fig  tree,  but  does  not  quote  (M.,  p. 
183).     This  may  not  signify  more  than  that  Ephraem  knew  the  separate  gospels. 

8 .  A  39  : 1 5,  1 6  =  Mark  1 4  : 8«,  6  ivx^v  iiroLijaev. 

9.  A  46  :  53  =  John  16:10,  koI  oiKiri  deupeiri  fie. 

259 


54  HISTOKIOAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

This  list  might  be  prolonged/^  But  of  the  omissions  of  longer 
sections  of  material  there  is  only  one  certain  example,  viz.,  the  omis- 
sion of  the  genealogies.  The  evidence  that  these  did  not  appear 
originally  in  D  is  conclusive.  There  is  (i)  the  express  testimony  of 
Theodoret  {Ad  Her.,  1:20,  written  in  453  A.  D.).  (2)  There  is  no 
comment  upon  them  in  E.  (3)  The  genealogies  are  given  in  the 
Borgian  manuscript  of  A  after  A  55:  17  (the  end  of  D  proper)  and 
with  the  title  The  Book  of  the  Generations  of  Jesus  (H.^,  pp.  3-5;  Hg., 
^-  55-I7)-  Another  omission  besides  this  might  be  claimed,  viz.,  of 
the  pericope  upon  the  adulterous  woman,  if  it  were  not  for  the  proba- 
bility that  this  section  was  not  in  T's  exemplar  {cf.  its  absence  from 
Syriac  versions. 

But  if  there  are  no  other  long  sections  than  those  mentioned  which 
are  omitted  entire,  yet  attention  must  be  called  to  the  mass  of  unused 
parallels.  In  this  connection,  the  dropping  out  of  items  of  material, 
not  elsewhere  included  in  D,  which  are  due  to  these  omissions  of  paral- 
lels, are  of  peculiar  interest.  Examples  of  the  omission  of  items  due 
to  this  and  other  causes  are  as  follows  : 

1.  A  7  :  13-17.  The  fact  that  it  was  four  men  who  bore  the  paralytic  drops 
out  through  the  use  of  the  Lukan  rather  than  the  Markan  account. 

2.  A  8  :  I.  Matt.  12  :  14  is  used  instead  of  Mark  3  :  6,  and  thereby  is  omitted 
the  fact  that  the  Pharisees  consulted  the  Herodians  in  their  attempt  to  do 
away  with  Jesus. 

3.  A  14:  44  =  Luke  9:  10.  There  is  neglected  here  the  fact  that  it  was  to 
Bethsaida  that  Jesus  withdrew. 

4.  A  24  :  26  drops  out  the  entire  verse,  Mark  9:16,  the  question  of  Jesus. 

5.  A  33:  5 2-5 5  =  Luke  20:  1 6<^.  The  reply  (and  its  introduction)  of  those 
listening  to  Jesus  is  omitted. 

6.  A  39  :  26-28^  omits  the  reference  of  Mark  1 1  :  4  to  the  colt's  being  tied  to 
a  door  in  the  street. 

These  examples  (the  list  might  be  lengthened)  might  have  been 
included  in  the  other  lists  of  omissions.  They  have  been  separated  to 
show  that,  even  where  parallel  material  had  been  used,  items  of  infor- 
mation are  involved  in  T's  omissions.  We  have,  therefore,  found  that 
T  omitted  words  and  phrases,  clauses  and  sentences,  at  least  one  long 
section,  and  a  mass  of  parallel  material,  in  all  of  which  omissions 
neglect  of  substance  was  involved. 

46  Further  examples  may  be  found,  as  suggested  above,  in  H.a,  App.  II  and  marginal  notes  to  the 
text  (tf/.,  e.  g.,  pp.  178, 179).  Th«  following  may  be  profitably  examined :  A  45  :  19-22  ( =  John  13 :  33-36) 
and  A  49 :  44  (=  John  18 :  28^) .    See  also  footnote,  p.  50. 


CHAPTER  V. 
CONFLATIONS. 

We  may  now  take  up  the  consideration  of  phenomena  which  are 
quite  inevitable  where  an  author  desires  to  preserve  the  language  of  his 
sources  fully  and,  at  the  same  time,  not  to  lose  any  of  the  differing 
items.  T  has  shown  himself  quite  skilful  in  the  intricate  interweaving 
of  elements  drawn  from  his  several  sources.  The  following  passages 
will  show  this  :'*^ 

A  12:6-10. — (Mark  5  \2ia.)^  "And  when  Jesus  had  crossed  in  the  ship 
to  that  side,  a  great  multitude  received  him  |  (Luke  8:  ^ob,  41a)  and  they 
were  all  looking  for  him.  And  a  man  named  Jairus,  the  chief  of  the  syna- 
gogue, fell  down  at  Jesus'  feet  and  besought  him  |  (Mark  5  :  23a)  much  and 
said  unto  him,  |  (Luke  8 :  42a)  '  I  have  an  only  daughter  and  she  is  come  nigh 
unto  death;  |  (Matt.  9 :  i8<J,  19)  but  come  and  lay  thy  hand  upon  her  and  she 
shall  live.'  And  Jesus  arose,  and  his  disciples  and  they  followed  him.  | 
(Mark  5  :  24^.)  And  there  joined  him  a  great  multitude  and  they  pressed 
him." 

A  17:8-18. — (Matt.  13:  31^)  "And  he  set  forth  to  them  another  par- 
able, I  (Mark  4  :  30^)  and  said,  (Luke  13  :.i8)  'To  what  is  the  kingdom  of  God 
like  and  to  what  shall  I  liken  it  |  (Mark  4 :  30*^)  and  in  what  parable  shall  I 
set  it  forth?  |  (Luke  13 :  19^)  It  is  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  which  a  man 
took  I  (Matt.  13:  31/^)  and  planted  in  his  field  |  (Mark  4  :  31 /5)  and,  of  the  num- 
ber of  things  that  are  sown  in  the  earth,  it  is  smaller  than  all  of  the  things  that 
are  sown,  which  are  upon  the  earth,  |  (Matt.  13  :  32^)  but  when  it  is  grown  it  is 
greater  than  all  the  herbs  |  (Mark  4 :  32^)  and  produceth  large  branches  | 
(Matt.  13  :  32^:)  so  that  the  birds  of  heaven  make  their  nests  in  its  branches.' " 

Note. — Attention  should  be  constantly  paid  to  the  bringing  over  of  material 
from  Luke's  Perean  sections  to  another  connection. 

A  II  :38-4S. — (Luke  8  :  26,  27a)  "And  they  departed  and  came  to  the 
country  of  the  Gadarenes,  which  is  on  the  other  side,  opposite  the  land  of 
Galilee.  And  when  he  went  out  of  the  ship  to  the  land  there  met  him  |  (Mark 
5  :  2/5)  from  the  tombs  a  man  |  (Luke  8  :  27^)  who  had  a  devil  for  a  long  time 
and  wore  no  clothes,  neither  dwelt  in  a  house  but  among  the  tombs.    |  (Mark 

47  All  assignments  to  the  gospels  have  been  made  after  an  examination  of  each  passage.  The  refer- 
ences in  Ciasca's  edition  of  A  (which  are  followed  by  Hill  and  Hogg)  are  not  always  to  be  trusted.  No 
detailed  consideration  has  been  given  to  the  text  of  A  in  the  following  examples,  because  the  possible  cor- 
ruptions of  text  could  not  affect  the  result  aimed  at  in  presenting  the  illustrations.  A  difference  of  reading 
here  and  there  would  not  have  any  effect  upon  the  general  result. 

48  The  assigiunents  include  all  material  that  follows  until  the  next  reference  number  is  reached. 

261]  55 


56  HISTOEICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

5  :  ■^b,  \d)  And  no  man  was  able  to  bind  him  with  chains,  because  any  time 
that  he  was  bound  with  chains  and  fetters,  he  cut  the  chains  and  loosened  the 
fetters.  |  (Luke  8  :  29^)  And  he  was  snatched  away  of  the  devil  into  the 
desert  |  (Mark  5  :  \b,  5a)  and  no  one  was  able  to  quiet  him.  And  at  all  times, 
in  the  night  and  in  the  day,  he  would  be  among  the  tombs  and  in  the  moun- 
tains ;  I  (Matt.  8 :  22>b)  and  no  one  was  able  to  pass  by  that  way ;  |  (Mark 
5  :  5^-7«)  and  he  would  cry  out  and  wound  himself  with  stones.  And  when 
he  saw  Jesus  at  a  distance,  he  hastened  and  worshipped  him  and  cried  with 
a  loud  voice  and  said,  |  (Luke  8  :  2Zb)  '  What  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus, 
thou  Son  of  the  Most  High  God  ?*|  (Mark  5  '.^c)  I  adjure  thee  by  God,  tor- 
ment me  not.'  |  (Luke  8 :  29^)  And  Jesus  commanded  the  unclean  spirit  to 
come  out  of  the  man,  etc.,  etc." 

Note. — This  passage  illustrates  the  conflation  of  all  three  synoptic  gospels. 

The  examples  thus  far  given  will  suffice  to  show  how  the  text  of  D 
reads  where  there  is  intricate  conflation.  The  intricacy  is  shown  also 
by  the  following  arrangement  of  reference  numbers  without  the  actual 
quotation  of  the  text : 

A  39  :  13-15  is  made  up  of  material  from  Matthew,  Mark  and  John, 
arranged  in  the  following  order:  Matt.  26:9;  Mark  14:  ^b;  Matt.  26: 
10a;  Mark  14 :  6b;  John  12  :  "jb;  Mark  14:7;  Matt.  26  :  12  ;  Mark  14  : 
U. 

A  41  .'33-41. — Here  we  have  material  from  the  three  synoptics: 
Mark  13  :  30;/  Matt.  24  :  3^/  Luke  21  :  7^/  Matt.  24  :  y;  Matt.  24  :  4^/ 
Luke  17  :  22b;  Matt.  24:4^^,  %a;  Luke  21  :  8^/  Mark  13  :  db  (or  Matt. 
24:5^);  Luke  21:  8^/  Mark  13:7^/  Luke2i:9<^/  Matt.  24:6^/  Luke 
21  :  10^,  II.  The  intricacy  here  is  remarkable.  A  number  of  the  pas- 
sages designated  contribute  only  one  or  two  words.  Note,  in  particular, 
the  unexpected  introduction  of  Luke  17  •.22b  (Perean  section).  The 
dislocation  of  this  single  item  is  suggestive  as  to  limits  to  which  a 
compiler  will  go  in  bringing  small  details  from  afar  to  serve  in  the 
composition  of  any  section, 

A  45 :  23-28  gives  a  conflation  of  material  from  all  four  gospels: 
Matt.  26  :'3i,  32;  John  13  :  36a/  Matt.  26  :  33^;  Luke  22  :  33<^(Lord),  (or 
John  13  :  37^;);  Matt.  26  :  i^fi;  Luke  22  :  ly;  John  13  :  37^,  38^1/  Mark 
14:30/5/ Luke  22  :  34^;  Marki4:3i«/  Matt.  26  :  35^/  Mark  14:31; 
Matt.  26  :  35<5.  Here,  also,  some  of  the  passages  referred  to  contribute 
but  one  or  two  words. 

Sufficient  variety  is  given  by  these  examples  '*'  to  show  that  the  degree 
of  intricacy  in  conflating,  and  the  remoteness  of  the  conflated  elements 
from  each  other  in  the  written  sources,  are  practically  unlimited  except 

49  Others  may  easily  be  had  by  examining  almost  any  page  of  D. 


DIATESSARON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         57 

by  T's  desire  to  present  a  tolerably  smooth  reading.     This  limit  even 
is  removed  sometimes  by  the  use  of  connectives.^" 

There  are,  however,  a  number  of  passages  which  contain  scenes  very 
strikingly  placed.  They  will  yield  additional  evidence  as  to  the  dis- 
tance from  which  minute  items  may  be  brought,  and  at  the  same  time 
will  show  how  little  one  source  may  contribute  at  any  given  point. 
Luke  4  :  i4«  is  inserted  (A  5:21),  into  Johannine  material  (between  John 
1:51  and  2:1),  and  is  put  to  good  service  in  getting  Jesus  from  Judea 
to  Galilee.  In  the  light  of  the  sources,  this  is  noteworthy.  Tatian 
identifies  the  return  to  Galilee  after  which,  according  to  John,  Jesus 
performed  his  first  miracle  at  Cana,  with  the  return  immediately  after 
which,  according  to  Luke,  the  Galilean  ministry  began,  and  he 
obviates  the  difficulty  which  is  thus  raised  by  the  consideration  of  the 
Johannine  Judean  ministry,  by  postponing  the  use  of  all  the  material 
relating  to  this.  By  making  this  identification,  it  was  possible  to  use 
Luke  4:  14^!  as  an  excellent  transition  from  John  i  :  51  to  John  2:  i 
and  the  rest  of  what  follows  in  D.  But  such  use  of  this  verse  separates 
it  completely  from  its  Lukan  context.  In  Luke  the  verse  forms  the 
transition  from  the  accounts  of  the  baptism  and  temptation  of  Jesus  to 
the  general  summary  of  his  widespread  work  and  fame  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Galilean  ministry.  In  D  it  constitutes  the  transition  from  the 
account  of  the  interview  between  Jesus,  Philip,  and  Nathaniel  to  that 
of  the  wedding  incident  at  Cana,  and  in  so  doing  it  raises  a  difficulty 
in  regard  to  the  point  of  departure  for  the  reckoning  of  the  chrono- 
logical significance  of  "the  third  day"  (John  2:1).  The  verse  in  its 
present  situation  is,  therefore,  quite  noteworthy.  Another  passage 
worthy  of  remark  is  A  6:22-25.  After  giving  in  A  6  :  20,  21,  the 
Johannine  version  of  the  occasion,  and  in  A  6:22  the  statement  of  the 
fact  of  Jesus'  withdrawal  from  Judea,  T  omits  the  last  item  of  John  4  : 3 
("and  departed  again  into  Galilee^'),  postponing  the  information  as  to 
Jesus'  destination.  T  apparently  decided  to  use  the  synoptic  statement 
concerning  the  destination,  and  this  use  all  but  compelled  the  inclusion 
of  the  synoptic  introduction  to  this  statement,  viz.,  the  synoptic  version 
of  the  occasion  of  the  withdrawal.  As  a  result,  we  have  this  order  : 
the  Johannine  statement  of  the  occasion  and  fact  of  departure,  then 
the  synoptic  statement  of  the  occasion,  fact,  and  destination  of  the 
withdrawal.  This  arrangement  preserves  all  of  the  material,  but  it  is 
rather  repetitious.  T  has  gone  quite  far  in  his  effort  to  preserve  the 
items  from  the  several  sources.     Another  striking  sentence  is  A  6  :  46. 

so  Cf.  Hill's  marginal  notes  to  his  text. 

263 


58  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

His  failure  to  identify  Matthew  and  Levi  probably  led  T  to  isolate 
Matt.  9  :  9<^  as  he  has  done  here.  In  so  doing  he  has  given  the  verse  a 
position  unlike  that  which  it  has  in  the  first  gospel.  An  illustration  of 
the  phenomenon  to  which  attention  was  called  (p.  55),  viz.,  of  the 
introduction  into  Matthean  and  Markan  material  of  items  from  Luke's 
Perean  section,  is  given  in  A  16:38  (Luke  10  :  23<$).  John4:45/5, 
(A  23  :  3),  which  assigns  the  cause  of  the  reception  of  Jesus  by  the 
Galileans  (John  4 :  45^)  is  postponed  not  only  to  a  point  after  the 
addition  of  much  synoptic  material,  but  also  to  a  position  after  the 
introduction  of  the  whole  of  John  chap.  5  (cf.  above,  p.  37).  This 
postponement,  therefore,  amounts  really  to  the  introduction  of  a 
remotely  situated  item  of  one  source  into  material  from  another, 
especially  since  this  verse  is  connected  in  D  with  Matthean  matter. 
Finally,  note  the  insertion  of  Mark  16  :  lib  into  the  otherwise  unbroken 
Johannine  account  (A  54:  36).  Tatian,  accordingly,  was  wont  to 
transfer,  from  one  account  to  another,  the  smallest  of  items,  and  that, 
too,  no  matter  how  remote  these  items  were,  in  the  orginal  sources, 
from  the  material  into  which  they  were  to  be  inserted. 

The  variety  of  combinations  of  larger  sections  of  material  is  as  great 
as  that  of  the  intricate  interweaving  of  smaller  items.  There  are 
instances  of  every  possible  combination  of  the  gospels  with  one  another. 
The  following  list  includes  not  only  combinations  of  parallel  passages, 
but  also  the  collocation  of  passages,  one  after  the  other,  which  concern 
different  events  or  contain  different  discourses. 

Combinations  of  two  gospels  are  : 

1.  Matthew     and     Mark     (A  5 :  42-48 ;       4.     Mark     and     Luke     (A      14:43-48 
24  :  20-24;  25:  27-46).  32:12-26). 

2.  Matthew    and    John     (A    41:1-15;       5.     Mark     and    John    (A    19: 14-16  £f. 
28:1-14;  51:1-14).  54:25-38). 

3.  Matthew    and    Luke    (A   4:45-52;       6.     Luke      and      John      (A     5:21-41 
II  :  1-23  ;  14:37-42).  28  :  15-41  ;  34  :  46-53;  41  :  16-26). 

Combinations  of  three  gospels  are  : 

1.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  (A  7  : 1-36 ;       3.     Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  (A  4  :  1-26 ; 
13:27-43;  14:2-30).  6:25-35). 

2.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  (A  19  : 1-13).       4.     Mark,  Luke,  and  John  (A  44  :  41-50). 

There  are  instances  also  of  the  combination  of  the  four  gospels 
(e.  ^.,  A  4  :  28-52  ;  18  :  22-50  :  32  :  1-2 1).  The  number  of  illustrations 
may  be  increased,  for  the  several  kinds  of  combination,  from  H.*, 
App.  L  The  variety  of  combination  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  those 
given. 

T's  method  in  combining  and  conflating  so  variously  was  generally 

264 


DIATESSAEON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  59 

to  identify  material  in  his  several  sources  as  referring  to  the  same 
occasion,  and  then  to  interweave  if  he  thought  it  possible,  and,  if  not, 
to  put  the  passages  in  juxtaposition  to  one  another.  He  carried  out 
this  procedure,  preserving  material  even  at  the  cost  of  repetition  and 
contextual  inconsistency.  Take,  for  example,  the  account  of  John  the 
Baptist's  ministry  (A  3  :  37 — 4  :  27).  The  narrative  begins  with  Luke 
3 :  1-6,  with  which  Matt.  3 :  ib-^^a  is  interwoven.  This  carries  the 
account  through  the  announcement  of  the  advent  and  preaching  of  John 
and  the  identification  of  him  according  to  the  synoptists.  Then  is 
added  John  i  :  7-28,  after  which  the  synoptic  account  is  resumed 
without  any  attempt  to  harmonize  A  4:2-11  and  4:24-26.  This 
failure  to  harmonize  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  Johannine 
account,  the  Baptist  addresses  the  representatives  from  Jerusalem,  but 
in  the  synoptic  narrative  his  words  are  directed  to  the  people.  Again, 
Matthew's  account  of  the  call  of  the  four  disciples  is  followed  by  that  of 
Luke  without  any  attempt  to  harmonize  the  two  narratives  (A  5 :  44 — 6 :  4). 
Attention  may  also  be  called  again  to  A  6  :  20-25,  where  T  gives  both  the 
Johannine  and  the  synoptic  version  of  Jesus'  withdrawal  from  Judea. 
Another  striking  combination  without  harmonization  is  to  be  found  in 
A  44  :  1 1-40  f.  Here  we  have  John  13  :  1-20  followed  by  the  synoptic 
account  of  the  preparation  for  and  of  the  actual  progress  of  the  paschal 
supper  (the  parallel  Johannine  material  is  connected  with  the  latter 
element).  The  result  is  that  we  have  a  partial  account  of  the  supper  in 
the  incident  of  the  feet-washing,  and  then  follows  the  account  proper 
of  the  passover  meal.s'  This  and  the  preceding  examples  make  T's 
method  clear.  He  combined  and  conflated  as  he  saw  fit,  attempting  to 
preserve  as  much  material  as  possible,  even  though  such  preservation 
involved  lack  of  harmonization,  repetition,  and  incongruities  {cf.  chap, 
vii). 

In  addition  to  the  above,  there  is  another  characteristic  of  T's  method 
which  should  be  indicated.  This  is  the  enrichment  of  discourses  found 
in  one  source  with  material  occurring  in  more  distributed  connections 
in  another.  Especially  important  and  instructive  are  the  quite  numer- 
ous cases  in  which  he  has  enriched  Matthean  discourses  with  matter 
from  Luke's  Perean  section.  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  some 
instances  this  enrichment  is  so  extensive  that  not  only  the  discourses  which 
appear  in  the  sources  {e.  g.,  Matthew)  are  greatly  lengthened,  but  new 

51  T  may  have  been  led  to  this  arrangement  by  the  phrase,  "  before  the  Feast  of  the  Passover,"  and 
by  interpreting  "  at  the  time  of  the  feast  "  to  mean  the  general  period  rather  than  the  actual  time  of  the 
supper. 


60  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

ones  are  created  by  the  combination  of  less  extended  passages.     Exam- 
ine the  following  : 

1 .  A  8  :  26 — /o  :  48,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. — The  material  from  the 
several  sources  is  arranged  as  follows  :  Matt.  5:3-10;  Luke  6:  22a/  Matt. 
5  :ii^,i2  ;  Luke  6  :  24-27  ;  Matt.  5  :  13-16;  Luke  8  :  17  (or  Mark 4:  22  ?); 
Mark  4:  23;  Matt.  5  :  17-25^/  Luke  12  :  58^  (Perean) ;  Matt.  5  :  25^- 
42;  Luke  6  :  3o<^,  31 ;  Matt  5  :  43-46  ;  Luke  6  :  32^^-36;  Matt.  5:47, 
48  ;  Matt,  6  :  1-8  ;  Luke  11  :  i^,  2a  (Perean  material ;  note  this  remark- 
able introduction  of  the  narrative  setting  for  the  Lord's  Prayer)  ;  Matt. 
6:9-18;  Luke  12  :  32,  33<2;  (Perean);  Matt.  6:19-23;  Luke  11:35, 
36  (Perean  material  ;  note  T's  acuteness  in  these  Matthean  and  Lukan 
passages);  Matt.  6:24-27;  Luke  12:26  (Perean);  Matt.  6:28-31; 
Luke  I  2  :  29^  (Perean) ;  Matt.  6  :  32-34 ;  Matt.  7:1;  Luke  6  :  37/^,  38  ; 
Mark  4 :  24^^  (note,  with  reference  to  the  use  of  Mark  here,  and  also  in 
respect  to  the  preceding  instance  of  such  use,  that  the  material  intro- 
duced is  that  which  is  not  included  in  Matthew's  version  of  the  parables 
by  the  sea);  Luke  \Z\%b  (or  Mark  4  :  25?);  Luke  6  :  39-42  ;  Matt.  7:6; 
Luke  II  :  5-13  (Perean);  Matt.  7  :  12-16^  (note  the  repetition  of  the 
"golden  rule"  in  the  same  discourse;  ^/.  A  9 :  11);  Luke  6 :  44  ;  Matt. 
7:17,  18  ;  Luke  6  :  45  ;  Matt.  7  :  19-23 ;  Luke  6  :  47,  48 ;  Matt.  7  :  25- 
27.  Some  of  the  material  added  to  Matthew  is  parallel  to  the  rejected 
portions  of  the  first  gospels,  but  most  of  it  is  not  such. 

2.  A  12  :  44  — 13  :  2g,  discourse  to  the  Twelve. — Here  there  is  intro- 
duced material,  not  only  from  the  parallels  to  Matthew  in  Mark  and  Luke, 
but  also  from  Luke's  Perean  section,  viz.,  Luke  12  :  3^,  ^a  (A  13:  12, 
13);  Luke  12  :  5«,  ^  (A  13  :  14);  Luke  12  :  51-53  (A  13  :  20-22).  If 
the  view  of  Zahn  and  Hill  is  correct,  that  T  conflated  with  this  discourse 
the  similar  instructions  to  the  Seventy  (Luke  10 :  3-12),  then  this  addi- 
tional Perean  material  must  be  reckoned  with  at  this  point. 

3.  A  13  :  44 — 14  :  40,  the  discourse  on  John  the  Baptist. — There  is 
introduced  here,  beside  parallel  material,  the  following  from  Luke's 
Perean  section  :  Luke  16 :  16  (A  14  :  5);  Luke  16  :  17  (A  14 :  19).  There 
is  also  used  Luke  6  :  45^  (A  14 :  34)  from  Luke's  version  of  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount.  There  is,  moreover,  added  at  the  end  of  the  dis- 
course Luke  12  :  54,  55  (Perean);  Matt.  16  :  2/^,  3a/  Luke  12  :  56  (Perean, 
with  possibly  the  conflation  of  Matt.  16  :  3/^).^''  Other  examples  are  not 
necessary,  as  an  examination  of  the  other  discourses  taken  from  Matthew 
reveals  that  they  have  been  enriched  in  the  same  way  as  those  discussed. 

S2  The  material  is  difficult  to  assign  here  on  occount  of  the  condition  of  the  Greek  text.  Our  assign- 
ment has  been  made  on  the  basis  of  Westcott  and  Hort's  text.  In  all  of  the  assignments  in  this  chapter  this 
edition  has  been  used  in  conjunction  with  that  of  Weiss  (in  part). 

266 


DIATESSARON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  61 

Examples  of  discourses  which  have  been  very  greatly  extended  and 
of  those  which  have  been  created  almost  entirely  are : 

1.  A  2g :  14-42. —  Here  is  quite  an  extended  discourse  made  by 
bringing  together  Luke  16  :  19-31  and  Matt.  20  :  1-16.  It  is  to  be  noted, 
in  addition,  that  T  apparently  considered  this  speech  to  be  a  continu- 
ation of  the  discourse  on  riches  that  precedes  it  in  D.  Thus,  were  it 
not  for  the  narrative  parenthesis  of  A  29  :  12,  13  (only  two  verses; 
cf.  introduction  of  narrative  setting  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  p.  60),  we 
should  have  a  continuous  discourse  extending  from  A  28 :  42  to  A  29 : 
42,  in  which  T  has  gathered  a  considerable  part  of  Jesus'  teaching  on 
riches.  If  this  be  the  case — and  it  probably  is  —  we  have  here  an  illus- 
tration of  the  bringing  together  of  more  or  less  isolated  teachings  to 
make  a  single  formal  discourse. 

2.  A  2g  :  43 — 30  .-30. — The  discourse  at  the  table  of  one  of  the 
chief  Pharisees  is  greatly  lengthened  by  the  conflation  of  Luke  14:  i- 
24  with  Matt.  22  :  1-14. 

3.  A  26  :  34  —  27  :  2g. — A  discourse  to  the  disciples  is  constructed 
by  adding  to  Luke  16:  1-12  the  following:  Matt.  18  :  23-35  \  Luke 
17  13,  4;  Matt.  18  :  15-22  :  Luke  12  :  47-50 ;  Matt.  18  :  10,  11.  Note 
the  way  in  which  T  has  manipulated  the  material  of  Matt.,  chap.  18. 
Note  also  that  he  has  broken  up  this  discourse  in  Matt.,  chap.  18,  and 
distributed  its  material  in  two  of  the  sections  of  D  (A  25  :  8-25  and  A 
26:1 — 27:9).  T  seems  to  work  both  by  integration  and  disinte- 
gration. 

4.  A  33  : 1-23. — Here  T  has  constructed  a  discourse  on  prayer,  and 
has  included,  in  the  following  order,  these  passages :  Mark  11  :  19,  20  ; 
Matt.  21:20b;  Mark  11:21-23;  Matt.  21:  21b,  22;  Luke  17:5-10 
(Perean);  Mark  11  :  24-26;  Luke  18:  1-8. 

The  above  examples  are  a  striking  commentary  upon  the  possibili- 
ties of  conflation  of  written  sources.  Nothing  that  has  been  alleged  of 
our  gospels  will  go  beyond  the  limit  here  indicated. 


267 


CHAPTER  VI. 
REWRITING. 

In  this  chapter  we  are  to  take  a  step  farther  and  consider  phenom- 
ena which  are  occasioned  by  an  attitude  of  mind  precisely  the  opposite 
of  that  which  is  everywhere  present  in  the  making  of  conflations  such 
as  have  just  been  discussed.  In  the  latter  case  there  is  constantly  pres- 
ent the  desire  to  preserve  as  much  of  the  material  as  possible  just  as  the 
sources  offer  it.  In  the  case  of  the  phenomena  about  to  be  considered 
there  is  a  disregard  for  the  exact  literary  form  of  the  material.  These 
phenomena  are  to  be  described  by  the  term  "rewriting." 

We  will  first  present  examples  of  rewritten  words.  These  are  of 
two  kinds — those  which  show  change  in  the  grammatical  forms  of 
words,  and  those  which  illustrate  the  substitution  of  synonymous  expres- 
sions. The  following  list  presents  examples  of  the  alteration  of  gram- 
matical forms  of  words : 
I.    A  13  :  41,  Luke  7:21,  "Spirit"  for  TrvevfMiTtov  is  used. 

Note. — The  only  evidence  which  is  adverse  to  the  use  of  this  example  is  the 
omission  in  S^  of  the  diacritical  mark  for  the  plural.  But  the  manuscript  is  defect- 
ive here,  and  therefore  little  force  can  be  given  to  the  omission. 

A  39 :  22,  •'  send  them  hither"  (Arab.  2d  pars,  dual  imperat.). 

Matt.  21:3,  dvoa-TeXei.     Mood,  person,  and  number  are  affected. 

A  30 :  52,  "  My  Father  hath  prepared." 

Mark   10:40,  ijToifjuKTTai    (Matt.   20:23),  inrb   irarpSs  fwv.       The   conflate 

reading  of  A  has  a  change  of  voice. 

j  A  4 :  51  has  a  subjunctive  clause  of  purpose  for  8Ld(a/u  (Luke  4  :  6). 

(  Change  of  mood. 

j  A  51  :  34,  "  Hath  been  written." 

(  John  ig  :  22,  yiypacfya.     Change  of  voice  and  person. 
^  j  A  28 :  28,  "Truly  this  man  has  been  known." 

(  John  7  :  27,  TovTov  o(5afiep,     Voice,  number,  and  person  are  affected. 
A  46:  14,  "that  I  should  be  reckoned." 

Luke  22 :  37,  iXoyUrdr].  Person  and  probably  the  tense  have  been 
changed,  for  the  Arabic  imperfect  refers  to  the  future,  /.  <?.,  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  writing  of  the  Scripture  referred  to.  This  change 
may  be  due,  however,  to  a  misreading  of  the  equivalent  Syriac  verb  on 
the  part  either  of  the  Arabic  translator  or  some  previous  scribe  of  D. 
Such  a  misreading  would  not  be  unlikely.     Indeed,  some  scribe  has  been 


10 


II 


DIATESSARON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  63 

guilty  of  this  confusion  in  writing  his  manuscript  of  P.     We  can  allow 
this  example,  therefore,  only  conditionally, 
g  (  A46:48.  "I  go." 
/  John  16:5,  inrdyeii.     Person  is  changed. 

!A  10:  14,  "Give  that  ye  may  be  given." 
Luke  6:37^,  5l8oTe  Kal  dod-fjaerai.  v/uv.     The  mood  is  changed  by  subor- 
dinating the  second  verb  of  the  Greek,  in  a  subjunctive  clause  of  purpose. 
This  instance  is  noteworthy,  for  in  the  preceding  clause,  "release  and 
ye  shall  be  released,"  no  such  change  is  made. 
A  17:9,  "shall  I  set  it  forth." 
Mark  4  :  30,  6Qfiev.     Change  in  number. 

Note. — A  suggestion  of  this  change  is  found  in  several  late  MSS.  of  the  Latin 
version  of  our  gospels.  That  they  could  have  influenced  D  in  transmission  is 
a  possibility  almost  too  remote  for  notice. 

A  18:26,  "healed"  (Arab,  imperfect  of  past  customary  action). 
Luke  9:11,  15.T0  (variant  Idffaro).  Whichever  reading  be  adopted  for 
the  Greek  text,  the  resultant  text  is  hardly  the  same  as  that  of  A.  The 
significance  of  the  Arabic  reading  is  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
rendering  of  Luke  9:11  at  A  32  :  23  Ibn-at-Tayib  has  used  the  perfect 
tense. 

This  list  shows  the  remarkable  variety  in  the  alterations  of  gram- 
matical forms. 

We  may  now  present  examples  of  the  substitution  of  synonymous 
words  and  phrases : 

J  j  A  29:23,  "go." 

(  Luke  16:28,  Sir  UK  Sia/Mfyriptirai  airois. 

Note. —  Aph.  is  not  to  be  accepted  as  testimony  against  A  at  this  point  {cf. 
column  907  of  Aph.),  for  the  quotation  in  the  homilies  is  quite  clearly  influenced 
by  P.  It  is  difficult  to  explain  the  derivation  of  the  reading  of  A  from  that  of  Aph. 
(supposing  the  latter  to  be  the  original).  The  similarity  of  the  reading  of  Aph. 
to  that  of  P  (for  Luke  16 :  28)  is  enough  to  show  how  the  text  of  Aph.  reached  its 
present  form.  Either  Aphraates  himself  in  quoting  from,  or  some  later  scribe  in 
copying,  the  homilies  was  influenced  by  P. 

A  39:41,  "take  possession  of"  (=Vat.  MSS.),  "drag"  (=  Borgian  MS.). 
Luke  19  :  44,  i8a<pix}v(nv. 

Note. — The  difference  in  the  Arabic  manuscripts  does  not  affect  the  point, 
unless  Hogg  is  right  in  his  suggestion  that  the  reading'  of  the  Borgian  manu- 
script, "drag,"  could  easily  have  arisen  from  the  change  of  a  single  diacritical 
mark  in  the  Arabic  word  for  "destroy."  If  this  is  true,  our  example  is  not  valid. 
But  Hogg  does  not  indicate  what  Arabic  word  he  refers  to,  and  the  only  one 
which  I  could  conjecture  as  possible  from  the  change  of  the  diacritical  point 
(cArr)  does  not  mean  "  destroy,"  if  the  authorities  I  have  used  are  correct. 

269 


2 


64  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


^  j  A43:8,  "judge.' 
(  Matt.  24:  51,  dixc 


dixoTO/JLT^ffei. 

Note. —  E  reads,  "Eum  abscindet  medium  et  separabit  eum  (M.,  p.  218). 
This  reading  can  hardly  be  accepted  as  original  so  far  as  abscindet  is  concerned, 
since  the  tendency  would  be  to  harmonize  the  reading  presented  by  A  with  that 
of  the  separate  gospels.  The  addition  of  et  separabit  eum  may  well  be  accounted 
original,  and,  if  so,  is  one  of  T's  additions. 

A  43  -.48,  "ye  cared  for;"  A  43  :  51,  "we  cared  for." 

Matt.  25  :  36,  ^\ea.TG\  Matt.  25  :  39,  ifXdofiev. 

Note. — The  testimony  of  Aph.  (column  902),  which  is  adverse  to  A  at  this 
point,  cannot  be  allowed  decisive  force.  Either  Aphraates  is  using  the  separate 
gospel  (of  P)  for  his  quotation  of  this  passage,  or  the  text  of  his  homily  has  been 
influenced  by  P.  A's  reading  cannot  be  derived  from  that  of  Aph.  Besides,  it 
is  T's  habit  to  make  such  interpretative  changes,  not  only  in  such  a  passage  as 
this,  but  also  in  others. 

ye  shall  deal  treacherously"  (Hogg  renders  "desert"). 


j  A  45:23,  "y 
(  Matt  26  131, 


,  J  A  1:51,  "embraceth." 

Luke  1 :  50,  a  copula  is  to  be  supplied. 
A  5  :8,  "his  place." 


(  John  I  :  39,  TToO  /jl4v€i. 
i  A  9: 1,  "to  God." 
I  Matt.  5  :  33, 


5  :  33'  "^V  'f^P^V- 

out  the  ages  and  times." 
7e;'eAs  Kal  yeveSis. 


SA  1:51,  "throughc 
Luke  1:50,  els  yevei 


«) 


Note. — The  Syriac  versions  are  unlike  the  Greek  here,  but  A's  reading  could 
scarcely  have  arisen  from  their  influence. 

A  9:  16,  17,  "where  is  your  superiority?" 
Luke  6 :  33,  34,  iroia  vfuv  x<^P'S  iffrLv. 

Note. — There  is  possibly  here  a  trace  of  the  influence  of  Matt.  5  :  47  (rt  irepLo-- 
aov  TTOietre),  especially  in  the  form  presented  by  P,  where  the  Syriac  equivalent 
of  "superiority"  appears.  Such  an  influence,  however,  could  not  be  appealed 
to,  to  explain  "  where,"  and  therefore  the  change  in  this  word  is  due  to  T. 

j  A  1 5  :  49,  "  if  he  is  not  able." 
(  Luke  14:32,  d  bk  fi-fne. 

J  A  17:47,  "Naaman,  the  Nabathaean." 

(  Luke  4:27,  Nai/iAv  6  SjJ/jos. 

j  A  25  :  20,  "  seduce." 

\  Matt.  18  :  9  (or  Mark  9  :  47),  (TKavSaXl^ei. 

j  A  25  :  38,  "hath  exposed  to  adultery." 

(  Mark  10:11,  fwixarai. 

270 


3^ 


DIATESSAKON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         65 

15.  A  4:13  (Matt.  3:4)-  We  know,  on  the  express  testimony  of  Ishodad, 
whose  statement  has  influenced  that  of  Bar  Salibi  and  Bar  Hebraeus, 
that  the  reading  of  D  was  "honey  and  milk  of  the  mountains,"  which 
is  not  preserved  in  A.  This  is  a  substitute  for  aKpides  Kal  /xiXc  Aypiov.  T 
seems  to  have  allowed  his  Encratite  views  to  influence  him  here.sa 

This  list  does  not  exhaust  the  number  of  examples,  but  shows  clearly 
enough  T's  literary  methods  with  respect  to  rewritten  words. 
Examples  of  rewritten  sentences  are  : 
j  A  3:  I,  "After  that." 

(  Matt.  2:1,  Tov  8^  'Ir]<Tov  yevvrjdivTos  iv  BrjdXeifi  rijs  'lovdaias  iv  iffjuipais  'B.p(i}5ov  rov 
/3a<rtX^ws  Idoij. 

Note. —  The  purpose  and  significance  of  this  change  has  already  been  dis- 
cussed (p.  48). 

A  4:51,  "which  is  delivered  unto  me  that  I  may  give  it  to  whomsoever  I 
will." 

Luke  4  :  6,  8tl  ifxol  irapadidorai  Kal  y  ihp  6i\(a  Sidco/xi  ain-fjv, 

A  7 :  37,  "And  while  Jesus  was  walking  on  the  sabbath  day  among  the 

sown  fields,  his  disciples  hungered,  and  they  were  rubbing  the  ears  with 

their  hands  and  eating." 
Matt.  12  ;  1,'Ei'  iKctvc^  ry  Kaipip  iiropeidifjd  'IiycroOs  rois  (rd^^acnv  SiAtwj'  (nropi/xcjv, 

ol  8^  /xadrjral  avrov  iirdvaaav  koX  ijp^aPTo  rlWeiv  crrdxuas  Kal  i<r6leiv. 
.  Luke  6  :id,  Kal  ijadtop  ^caxovres  rats  x^P^^^"' 

Note. —  Tatian  has  here  both  conflated  and  rewritten  his  material.  Some, 
but  not  all,  of  his  variations  maybe  due  to  S*^.  Compare  S'^  for  Matt.  12:1: 
"  And  at  that  time  Jesus  was  walking  on  the  sabbath  among  the  corn,  and  his 
disciples  were  hungry  and  began  plucking  ears  and  rubbing  them  in  their  hands 
and  eating."  If  S*^  is  later  than  D  in  origin,  it  may  have  been  influenced  here 
by  T's  gospel. 

'A  15:50,  "So  shall  every  man  of  you  consider,  that  desireth  to  be  a 
disciple  to  me :  for,  if  he  renounceth  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  can  not  be 
my  disciple."     (The  words  italicized  may  be  due  to  P,  but  no  others.) 
Luke  14  :  33,  o(Jtwj  obv  iras  i^  v[xG>v  5$  o{)k  diroTdfffferai  wcuriv  rois  iavroG  inrdpxov- 
ffip  oi  8ivaTai  eJval  /xov  fjLadrjT'^s. 
Ta  16:  17,  "And  he  beckoned  with  his  hand,  stretching  it  out  toward  his 
5  J      disciples  and  said." 

I  Matt.  1 2  :  49,  Kal  iKrelvas  ttju  x«P<*  ^""i  rois  nadrfrds  airov  eXirev. 
'A  19:9,  "And  when  Jesus  came  near  he  went  up  unto  them  into  the 

boat,  he  and  Simon,  and  immediately  the  wind  ceased." 
Mark  6:51   {cf.  Matt.  14:32),  Kal  dvi^tf  vpbs  airroifs  els  t6  irXohp  Kal  iKbiraffev  b 
dvcfios. 

S3  For  a  suggestive  discussion  of  this  passage,  and  for  the  quotation  from  Ishodad,  see  Har.c,  pp. 
17,  x8. 

271 


4^ 


6^ 


66  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Note. —  E  gives  a  reading  for  this  verse  of  D  according  to  which  it  seems  to 
have  been  even  more  recast  by  T  than  appears  from  a  consideration  of  A's  text 
alone  :  "  Cum  venisset  Dominus  et  cum  Petro  navem  ascendissit,  ventus  cessavit 
et  quievit  "  (M.,  p.  136). 

!A  24 :  6,  "And  they  thought  [the  disciples]  that  the  time  of  his  decease 
....  was  come." 
Luke  9:31,  €\e70J'  ['HXefas  Kal  Mwucr^s]  rijv  t^odov  airrov. 
«  j  A  39  :  22,  "We  seek  them  for  our  Lord  and  straightway  send  them  hither." 
(  Matt.  21  :  3^,  6  /ciJptos  ainrGiv  xP^^^v  ex«'  ei>di)s  airoffreKei  aiiroiis  (Mark  11:3)  <&5e. 

I  A  51  :  6.  "Then  Pilate  commanded  to  grant  their  request  and  delivered 
9'j      up  Jesus  to  be  crucified." 

I  Luke  23  :24,  koL  ILeCKaros  itr^Kpivev  yeviffdai  rb  afrTj^a  a^wi'  (John  ig  :  1 6)  rfrre 
odp  TrapiduKcu  airbv  airoTs  ha  (rravpud^. 
A  51  :3i,  "And  Pilate  wrote  on  a  tablet  ^ke  cause  of  his  death  and  put  it 
on  the  wood  of  the  cross  above  his  head.     And  there  was  written  upon 
it,"  etc.     The  words  italicized  may  be  due  to  P. 
John  19:19,  fypoipev  d^  Kal  tItKov  b  IletXaTos  Kal  fdrjKep  iirl  rod  (rravpoO  •  fjv  bk 
yeypafJLfiivov 
^Matt.  27  :  37,  Kal  iiridriKev  iir&vu)  t^s  Kc^aX-^s  airrov  rijv  ahlav  airrov  yeypanfi^vrjv. 

In  this  final  example  we  have  a  striking  instance  of  the  employ- 
ment of  both  conflation  and  rewriting : 

A  24:3,  4  (Luke  9:29^)  "And  while  they  were  praying,  Jesus  |  (Matt. 
1 7  :  2a)  changed  |  (Luke  9  :  29)  and  became  after  the  fashion  of  another 
person  \  (Matt.  17  :  2<5),  and  his  face  shone  like  the  sun  and  his  raiment 
was  I  (Mark  9 :  3a)  very  white  [  (Luke  9 :  26  according  to  the  Syriac 
versions)  like  snow  |  (Matt.  17:2^)  and  as  the  light  of  the  lightning 
I  (Mark  9 : 3/^)  so  that  nothing  on  earth  can  whiten  like  it."  The 
passages  italicized  are  without  exact  equivalents  in  the  Greek,  but 
are  somewhat  like  the  verses  to  which  they  are  assigned. 
Luke  9  :  29,  Kal  iy^vero  ip  ry  Trpoaeijxeffdai  airrbv  rb  elSos  tov  irpoadiirov    a^rou 

irepop  Kal  b  IpLaTiffpibs. 
Matt.  17:2,  airrov  \evKbs  i^aa-Tpdirrtap.  Kal  /xeTe/Jioptpibdrj  ^/nrpoadep  airSip 

Kal  ltKa/x'\f/€P  rb  Trpbacjirop  airrov  w$  6  -^Xtos,  rb.  8^  IpAria  avrov  iyhero  \evK&. 
Mark  9:3,  ws  t6  ^ws.  koL  rb.  Ifidria  airov  iyipero  ffrlXpopra  XevKb.  \iap,  oTa 

ypa<p€i>s  M  ttjs  yijs  oi)  bifparai  oCtojs  Xei/Komi. 

This  last  example  is  a  fitting  climax  to  the  others  which  precede. 
No  matter  how  many  more  we  should  add  —  there  are  other  examples 
— they  could  not  show  any  more  clearly  than  those  above  how  freely 
T  rewrote  some  of  his  sentences. 

There  are  in  D,  strictly  speaking,  no  rewritten   paragraphs.     T's 
regard  for  his  sources  was  apparently  too  great  to  allow  him  to   reject 

272 


II 


DIATESSARON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  67 

the  literary  form  of  an  entire  paragraph  and  to  give  its  substance  a 
new  dress.  The  nearest  approach  to  a  rewritten  section  is  found  in 
those  where  the  interweaving,  conflation,  and  rewritten  sentences  (the 
last  more  or  less  scattered)  give  the  sections  an  entirely  different  form 
from  that  which  the  same  material  had  in  any  one  of  the  sources  {e,  g.y 
A  24:  1-16,  and  39:  1-17).  Yet  it  must  be  said  that  such  sections  do 
not  present  precisely  the  phenomenon  of  rewritten  paragraphs,  such  as 
are  alleged  to  be  present  in  the  synoptic  gospels.  We  must,  therefore, 
be  content  with  noting  the  near  approach  just  indicated,  and  with 
stating  the  absence  of  the  real  phenomenon. 


273 


CHAPTER  VII. 
INCONGRUITIES  AND  REPETITIONS. 

A  PHENOMENON  which  is  usually  given  considerable  weight  by 
critics  in  determining  whether  a  literary  work  is  a  compilation  or  not, 
consists  in  the  occurrence  in  the  work  of  contextual  incongruities ;  /.  <?., 
the  occurrence  of  statements  which  are,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
inconsistent  with  other  statements  in  the  context.  T's  gospel  offers  a 
good  opportunity,  since  we  possess  his  sources,  for  testing  whether 
such  a  phenomenon  is  to  be  expected  in  compilations.  It  will  be 
reassuring  to  those  critics  who  have  used  this  phenomenon  as  a 
criterion  to  find  that  in  even  so  skilful  a  compilation  as  D  there  are 
a  number  of  instances  of  incongruity. 

1.  A  4: 10,  cf.  2^. —  In  4:10  John  the  Baptist  is  made  to  say, 
"This  is  he  who,  I  said,  cometh  after  me  and  was  before  me,"  etc.  No 
such  saying,  however,  has  been  given  before  in  D.  Then  in  4:25  is 
presented  the  saying  which  is  apparently  referred  to  in  4  :  10.  The 
incongruity  arises  from  the  juxtaposition  of  two  unharmonized  sec- 
tions from  different  sources.^'* 

2.  A  4:42;  cf.  § :4,  21. —  In  4:42  Jesus  is  declared  to  have 
returned  from  the  Jordan,  and  in  4:43  the  account  of  the  temptation 
begins.  Yet  in  5  : 4  ff.  Jesus  is  still  represented  as  in  the  company 
of  the  Baptist,  and  in  5:21  the  statement  of  his  return  to  Galilee  is 
made.  This  statement  suggests  to  the  reader  of  D  that  "  the  third 
day"  of  5:22  is  not  to  be  reckoned  from  the  baptism.  Probably  T 
had  some  reason  for  supposing  that  Luke  4:1  (A  4:42)  did  not  refer 
to  a  return  to  Galilee,  as  the  source  of  A  5:21  is  Luke  4  :  14;  but  the 
assumption  that  Jesus  was  still  with  John,  though  possible,  is  hardly 
suggested  by  the  sources,  and  it  produces  an  incongruity  in  the  narra- 
tive, since  there  is  no  statement  of  a  movement  on  the  part  of  Jesus 
from  the  place  of  temptation  to  the  Jordan. 

3.  A  6:20-25. — The  awkwardness  of  this  passage  has  been  dis- 
cussed above,  p.  57. 

4.  A  18:1-5,  cf.  20.- — Herod,  marveling  at  what  he  had  heard  of 
Jesus,  joins  in  the  opinion,  according  to  this  passage,  that  John  the 
Baptist  had  risen  from  the  dead  (18  : 1-5).  Yet  in  18  :  20  Herod  is  still 
undecided  as  to  who  Jesus  is  and  desires  to  see  him.     A  comparison 

54  If  T's  text  of  John  agreed  with  that  of  W.  H.,  this  incongruity  is  due  to  the  corruption  of  D. 

68  [274 


DIATESSARON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  69 

with  the  sources  at  once  reveals   the  cause  of  the  incongruity,  viz., 
incompletely  harmonized  juxtaposition. 

5.  A  44:10-34. —  Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  peculiari- 
ties of  this  passage  (p.  59,  above).^^  It  suffices  here  to  note  that  the 
account  of  the  Last  Supper  begins  at  44 :  10,  is  then  diverted  immedi- 
ately to  the  account  of  a  meal  apparently  preceding  the  paschal  sup- 
per; then  the  account  begun  in  44:10  is  resumed  again. 

6.  A  4g:44. —  Tatian  failed  to  see  the  chronological  incongruity 
between  John  18  :  28  and  the  synoptic  account  of  Jesus'  trial  and  cruci- 
fixion. The  difficulty  is  made  more  outstanding  by  the  combination 
of  the  two  narratives. 

7.  A  54:23,  24. — Again  T  has  failed  to  perceive  what  is  now  gen- 
erally held  to  be  an  incongruity  in  the  unified  development  of  the 
entire  fourth  gospel,  viz.,  the  indication,  in  John  20:30,  31,  of  the 
close  of  the  book.^^ 

These  incongruities  could  be  discovered,  for  the  most  part,  even  if 
we  did  not  possess  T's  sources,  and  they,  therefore,  illustrate  exactly 
the  incongruities  usually  alleged  to  be  present  in  works  which  are  sup- 
posed to  be  compilations. 

The  presence  of  incongruities  in  D  suggests  that  there  will  be  found 
in  it  also  that  other  phenomenon  so  generally  found  in  works  alleged 
to  be  compilations,  viz.,  repetition.  The  list  below  will  illustrate  the 
number  and  variety  of  the  occurrences  of  this  phenomenon : 

1.  A  4: 10,  cf.  23. — We  have  in  these  two  passages  really  the  same 
saying  from  different  sources,  though  T  has  given  it  a  different  setting 
in  the  two  passages.  Indeed,  the  accounts  4:2-11  and  4:24,  25  seem 
to  refer  to  the  same  facts,  but  T  is  no  duller  in  keeping  the  narratives 
separated  than  almost  all  modern  harmonists. 

2.  A  3 :33,  34;  cf.  7 :8. —  The  statement  concerning  the  widespread 
fame  of  Jesus  is  twice  used,  and  in  both  cases  seems  to  be  derived  from 
Luke  4:14^,  15.  (Luke  4:37  is  also  similar,  though  its  parallel  (Mark 
I  :28)  is  not, and  maybe  the  source  for  one  of  the  occurrences, though 
this  is  not  likely.) 

3.  A  6:22;  cf.  23. — The  fact  of  withdrawal  from  Judea  to  Galilee 
is  used  twice.  In  the  first,  the  point  of  departure  is  emphasized;  in 
the  second,  the  point  of  destination  is  expressed.     Cf.  p.  57. 

4.  A  6:36;  cf.  7 :23. —  The  call  of  Matthew  and  that  of  Levi  are 
not  identified,  as  it  is  now  usual  to  do. 

55  For  a  discussion,  from  a  somewhat  different  standpoint  from  that  taken  here,  of  some  of  the  pas« 
sages  in  this  list  and  one  other,  see  pp.  57  f .  above. 

56  For  two  additional  examples  of  incongruity  see  footnotes,  p.  72  and  p.  73. 

275 


70  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

5.  A  y  :g;  cf.  25. —  The  call  of  Levi  is  given  twice,  once  from  Mark 
2  :i4  and  once  from  Luke  5  :27.  There  is  possibly  a  hint  as  to  how 
this  repetition  arose  in  E,  whose  reference  to  Jesus'  choice  of  Jacobum 
publicanum  (M.,  p.  58)  may  indicate  that  this  was  the  reading  in  D  at 
a  point  corresponding  to  A  7:9.  There  is  authority  (especially  the 
"western"  text)  for  such  a  reading  in  Mark  2  :  14,  and  it  is  more  than 
possible  that  such  a  reading  was  present  in  T's  exemplar  of  Mark,  since 
the  text  of  D  shows  a  decided  affinity  to  "western"  readings.  The 
fact  that  F  omits  the  material  of  A  7:9  may  be  explained  by  supposing 
its  author,  knowing  the  better  reading  for  Mark  2:14,  perceived  the 
repetition.  If  the  reading  of  his  exemplar  of  D  was  "Levi,"  the  per- 
ception of  this  was  easy.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  his  exemplar  had  not 
become  corrupted,  as  A  has  (assuming  the  correctness  of  our  supposi- 
tion), and  read  "Jacob,"  his  Latin  text  of  the  separate  gospels  would 
correct  this  reading.  Yet,  over  against  the  whole  supposition  is  the 
fact  that  the  reference  in  E  is  not  a  direct  quotation,  and  its  reading 
may  be  due  to  Ephraem's,  not  to  Tatian's,  knowledge  of  the  separate 
gospel  texts. 

6.  A  8:44;  cf.  13 :ii ;  cf.  41  :ig. —  In  these  passages  the  same  say- 
ing is  repeated  from  Mark  4:23;  Matt.  10:26,  and  Luke  12:2, 
respectively.  It  is  alleged  that  Matthew  has  repeated  sayings  from  two 
different  sources,  but  T  goes  even  farther  in  thus  using  the  same  say- 
ing from  three  sources. 

7.  A  13  :  12  ;  cf.4i:2ob. —  Luke  12:3/5  is  used  at  both  the 
points  indicated.  E  has  at  a  place  corresponding  to  A  13:12 
substituted  Matt.  10  :  27^^  for  Luke  12  :  3^.  This  is  another  case 
where  E's  text  has  been  influenced  by  a  separate  gospel.  Either 
Ephraem's  exemplar  had  already  been  influenced ;  or  his  own  knowl- 
edge of  the  gospel  text^^  suggested  this  quotation  to  his  mind;  or 
else  the  text  of  E  has  been  corrupted.  E  gives  a  reading  in  line  with 
the  general  harmonizing  corruptions  in  D,  while  A  preserves  an 
unharmonized  text. 

8.  A  18:  2  ;  cf^. —  In  18  :2  the  people  are  made  to  say  that 
Jesus  is  John  the  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead,  where  Luke  6  :  7  is  the 
source.  In  18:5  Herod  says  the  same  thing,  and  here  the  source 
is  Matt.  14  :  2. 

9.  A  18  : 3  ;  cf.  23  .-33. —  The  expression  "  others,  Jeremiah  " 
drawn  from  Matt.  16  :  14^  is  used  in  both  the  places  indicated. 

10.  A  18  :  26  ;  cf.  32  .-23. —  At  both  points  Luke  9  :  ii3  appears. 

57  For  a  discussion  of  such  a  knowledge  on  the  part  of  Ephraem  see  Z.^,  pp.  61-63. 

276 


DIATESSARON    AND    THE    SYNOPTIC    PROBLEM  71 

II.  A  22  :g  ;  cf.  JO  :ji. —  According  to  the  assignment  of 
material  in  Ciasca's  Arabic  Diatessaron,  which  is  adopted  on  the 
margin  of  the  text  of  both  Hogg  and  Hill,  there  is  a  repetition  here 
of  John  5:1.  But  the  assignment  of  30  :  31  to  John  5  :  i  can  hardly 
be  correct.  The  verse  in  A  agrees  with  John  2:13,  which  is  nowhere 
else  used,  and  differs  from  John  5  :  i  in  the  exact  identification  of  the 
feast  mentioned  as  the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  To  be  sure,  there 
is  a  variant  of  John  5  :i  which  makes  this  identification,  and  it  might 
be  said  that  this  was  the  reading  of  T's  exemplar.  But  the  use  of 
John  5:1  at  A  22:9  without  such  identification  disposes  of  such 
a  suggestion  at  once,  for  it  is  quite  incredible  that  T  should  have 
given  John  5  :  i  in  two  forms  from  the  same  exemplar.  Besides,  had 
such  a  reading  been  in  T's  copy  of  John,  it  could  hardly  have  failed 
to  influence  his  conception  of  the  chronology  of  Jesus'  life  ;  and, 
therefore,  how  can  we  think  that  T  would  have  thus  dallied  with  John 
5  :  I  so  as  to  give  it  two  very  distinct  forms  ?  In  the  face  of  these 
considerations,  and  since  we  have  a  reasonably  close  agreement 
between  John  2:13  and  A  30  :  31  (closer  than  that  between  John  5  :  i 
and  A),  Ciasca's  assignment  is  without  probability.  Moreover,  the 
comparatively  near  occurrence  in  the  context  of  D  (A  32 :  i)  of  John 
2:14,  which  is  the  next  following  Johannine  passage,  points  to  John 
2  :  13  as  the  source  of  A  30  :  31  rather  than  to  John  5:1.  Still 
further  there  is  no  explanation,  on  Ciasca's  assignment,  of  T's  con- 
struction of  the  following  narrative,  which  is  concerned  with  what,  at 
first  sight  at  least,  is  an  uncanonical  Judean  ministry.  Such  an  expla- 
nation ^^  is  possible  if  the  assignment  herein  suggested  be  accepted. 

To  support  our  explanation  we  may  appeal  to  the  larger  context. 
Throughout  28:1  —  38  :  47  T  deals  with  a  period  of  Jesus'  career 
in  which  Christ  seems  to  have  made  a  number  of  journeys  to 
and  fro  between  Perea  and  Jerusalem  {cf.  the  outline,  chap.  ii). 
In  28  :  42  it  is  recorded  that  Jesus  returned  from  Jerusalem,  whither 
he  had  gone,  according  to  A  28  :  9  ff.  From  28  :  42  on,  T  describes 
Jesus'  Perean  activities,  drawing  largely  upon  Matthew  and  Mark  for 
his  framework,  but  weaving  into  his  account  Lukan  material.  In  this 
account,  two  discourses  (28  142  —  29:42  on  riches,  and  29  143  —  30:  30 
warnings   given    at    the    Pharisee's   table  )2'   were   put,    when   T   was 

58  So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  there  has  been  no  attempt  made  to  explain  T's  remarkable 
collocation  of  the  material  which  follows  A  30  :  31  {cf.  the  outline  above,  chap.  ii).  The  explanatioii 
here  given  fully  satisfies  the  demands  of  probability. 

59  For  the  suggestion  that  the  first  of  these  discourses  was  actually  thought  of  by  T  as  a  single 
speech,  see  above,  p.  61. 

277 


72  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

brought  in  the  use  of  his  material  to  Mark  lo  :^2.^  This  verse  implies 
a  visit  to  Jerusalem.  A  passage  (Luke  17  :  11-19)  in  the  section  of 
Luke  which  was  being  used  in  the  construction  of  the  narrative  here 
was  naturally  connected  with  this  journey,  and  was  used  before  Mark 
10  :  32,  because  it  did  not  fit  well  at  any  subsequent  point.  T  then 
continued  his  work  with  his  Markan  material.  He  includes  Mark 
10  :  32  ff.  (interweaving  Luke  18  131-34),  which  distinctly  represents 
Jesus  as  referring  to  his  passion,  which  was  imminent.^'  He  then 
continued  with  Markan  and  Matthean  material.  Without  going  into 
detail,  we  may  note  that  he  gives  an  account  of  the  journey,  which,  in 
the  synoptists,  is  that  which  precedes  the  passion  week.  The  decision 
to  use  this  material  in  this  position  then  brought  T  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  accounts  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  and  of  the 
triumphal  entry.  The  account  of  the  latter  was  reserved  as  the  most 
fitting  introduction  to  the  narrative  of  the  last  Passover,  and  in 
particular  to  John  12  :i7  (^.  A  39  :  18 — 40  :4).  This  reservation  may 
have  been  suggested  to  T,  in  the  first  instance,  by  the  fact  that  the 
fourth  gospel  separates  the  account  of  the  triumphal  entry  from  that 
of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple,  and  this  latter  account  seemed  to  T 
to  be  fittingly  identified  with  that  of  the  synoptists.  The  identifi- 
cation of  the  Johannine  and  synoptic  accounts  of  the  cleansing  of  the 
temple  thus  resulted,  on  the  one  hand,  in  the  separation  and  post- 
ponement of  the  account  of  the  triumphal  entry.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  determined  for  T  that  the  whole  of  his  narrative,  beginning 
at  a  point  corresponding  to  A  30  :  32  and  continuing  down  to  the 
harmonization  of  these  two  accounts  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple, 
must  refer  to  that  journey  to  Jerusalem  which  is  recorded  in  John 
2  :  13  f.,  since  it  was  with  this  journey  that  John  connects  the  account 
of  the  cleansing.  He,  therefore,  retraced  his  steps  and  inserted  John 
2  :  13  before  his  first  reference  to  the  journey  (A  30  132  =  Luke  17  :  11) 
which  had  yet  been  made.  He  added  to  John  2  :  13,  as  a  connective 
to  what  preceded,  the  words  "And  after  that."^  Then  he  co-ordinated 
and  conflated,  at  the  proper  points,  the  whole  Johannine  narrative 
contained  in  John  2:13  —  3:21,  except  the  passage  John  2  :  23-25 
which  had  already  been  used,  with  the  significant  omission  of   John 

60  Mark  seems  to  be  the  starting-point  for  all  of  T's  work  here. 

61  Yet  the  passion  is  a  year  off,  according  to  the  indications  in  D  (c/.  the  continuation  of  the  above 
discussion).    This  chronological  incongruity  might  be  added  to  the  list  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter. 

62 These  are  the  words  which  probably  led  to  the  assignment  of  this  verse  to  John  s  :  i«     With  this 
explanation  of  them  there  is  no  further  need  to  consider  that  assignment. 

278 


BIATESSAEON   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC   PKOBLEM  73 

2  :  23d2;,^3  at  A  15  :  12-14.  T  then  had  his  co-ordinated  and  conflated 
account  connected  with  a  Passover  feast.  He  continued  his  narrative 
of  the  activities  of  Jesus  at  this  feast  by  the  use  of  material  from  the 
synoptics,  and  at  one  point  in  this  procedure  was  led  to  differentiate 
the  Passover  here  concerned  with  that  of  the  passion  week.  At  the 
very  beginning  of  the  section  of  D  which  we  are  discussing  (A  28:1  — 
38  :  47),  T  had  used  a  part  of  John,  chap.  7  (7  :  2-31),  breaking  off 
with  vs.  31  at  A  28  :  32.  He  was  undoubtedly  watching  for  a  good 
opportunity  to  resume  the  use  of  Johannine  material,  and  such  an 
opportunity  seemed  to  him  to  be  offered  at  the  point  corresponding 
to  A  34  :  48,  for  John  7:31  joins  well  here.  Once  the  Johannine 
narrative  was  resumed,  there  did  not  seem  to  T  that  there  was  any 
suitable  place  to  break  it  until  the  end  of  John,  chap.  11  was  reached, 
and  therefore  the  entire  section  (John  7:31  —  11:5  7)  is  incorporated, 
with  the  introduction  of  only  one  brief  passage  of  synoptic  material 
(Matt.  21:41 — 46;  A  35:17-22),  which  is  inserted  in  toto.  But 
this  long  passage  from  the  fourth  gospel  contained  John  10:22, 
which  refers  to  Jesus'  presence  in  Jerusalem  during  the  winter.  In 
view  of  the  development  of  the  preceding  narrative,  this  referred 
to  the  winter  after  the  Passover  of  A  30  :  31.  T  was,  therefore, 
compelled  to  regard  the  Passover,  referred  to  in  John  12  :  i,  to  which 
he  came  in  his  study  at  the  end  of  John,  chap.  1 1  (included  above),  as 
one  year  later  than  the  feast  to  which  he  has  referred  in  A  30:31. 
When  this  conclusion  was  reached,  the  material  from  Luke  9:51-56 
was  inserted  before  John  12:1  as  an  introductory  statement  (A 
38:42-47;  cf.  39:1),^'*  and  then  the  account  of  the  passion  week 
was  compiled. 

Such  a  procedure  as  this,  which  has  been  suggested,  is  the  only 
one,  so  far  as  the  present  writer  has  been  able  to  discover,  which  will 
explain  the  remarkable  arrangement  which  T  has  given  his  material. 
The  length  of  our  discussion  of  this  one  passage  (A  30  :  31),  in  which  a 
repetition  of  John  5  :  i  is  alleged  to  be  present,  is  justified  by  the  im- 
portance of  correctly  assigning  this  verse  in  order  to  understand  T's 
arrangement  of  material  in  A  28  :  i  —  39  :  17.  The  result  for  the  subject 
of  this  chapter  is  that  there  are  three  reasons  for  assigning  A  30  : 3 1  to 
John  2  :  13  rather  than  to  John  5:1.     These  reasons  are  (i)  the  closer 

63  This  statement  would  have  been  incongruous  at  A  15  :  12,  since  the  context  here  does  not 
represent  the  scene  of  Jesus'  activities  at  Jerusalem. 

64  This  place  would  seem  to  be  a  better  one  for  Mark  10 :  32  ff.,  which  really  creates  an  incongruity 
where  it  stands  (A  30:  40  ff.),on  account  of  the  postponement  of  the  fulfilment  of  Jesus'  prediction  for  a 
whole  year.    This  incongruity  might  be  added  to  the  list  above. 

279 


74  HISTOBICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

agreement  of  A  30 :  31  with  John  2:13;  (2)  the  proximity  of  John  2:14 
to  A  30  :  31  in  the  context  of  D ;  and  (3)  the  possibility  of  explaining 
T's  arrangement  if  John  2  113  be  the   source.     These    reasons    seem 
conclusive.     A  30  131  then  is  to  be  assigned  to  John  2:13. 
We  may  resume  our  presentation  of  doublets  in  D. 

12.  A  28:32  ;   cf.  34.  .-48. —  In  both  places  John  7  131  is  used. 

13.  A  4^  :  27  /  cf.  4g  :  17. —  Here  Mark  14  :  2>^b  is  twice  employed. 

14.  A  54  :  14  ;  cf.  55  .-J. — John  20  :  21^  is  used  at  both  points. 
We  have  thus  thirteen  illustrations  (deducting  No.  11)  of  T's  use 

of  the  same  material  more  than  once.  In  one  instance,  he  uses  the 
same  saying  three  times,  and  each  time  it  is  drawn  from  a  different 
source.  On  the  other  hand,  he  employs  passages  twice  from  the  same 
source.  He  also  gives  double  accounts  because  of  incomplete  har- 
monization, and  this  too  where  the  passages,  in  their  entirety,  are 
identified  as  referring  to  the  same  event  or  speech.  Both  the  number 
and  variety  of  our  illustrations  are,  therefore,  great. 


280 


CHAPTER   VIII. 
COMPARISON  OF  THE  METHODS  OF  TATIAN  AND  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 

The  greater  part  of  our  investigation  has  now  been  completed. 
We  have  discovered  the  characteristic  of  T's  literary  methods.  It  still 
remains  for  us  to  compare  these  characteristics  with  the  phenomena 
which  appear  in  a  comparison  of  the  synoptic  gospels  with  one 
another.  What  degree  of  similarity  is  there  between  the  two  ?  This 
is  the  main  question  of  our  problem.  We  have  found  in  D,  which 
is  indisputably  compiled  from  written  sources,  examples  of  almost 
every  sort  of  phenomenon  which  are  generally  alleged  to  be  present  in 
works  supposed  to  be  compilations.  Moreover,  these  phenomena  are 
just  such  as  are  alleged  to  be  present  in  the  synoptic  gospels.  T 
worked  out  a  plan  for  his  gospel,  to  which  he  subordinated  the 
material  of  his  sources,  choosing  material  now  from  one  document, 
now  from  another.  Likewise  the  synoptists  clearly  adopted  plans 
for  their  respective  gospels,  and  exercised  discretion  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  material  which  they  drew  from  their  sources.  The  plan 
adopted  by  T  follows  the  main  divisions  of  Jesus'  life  as  represented 
by  our  gospels,  but  with  the  striking  difference  of  the  omission  of  an 
early  Judean  ministry  and  the  practical  creation  of  a  later  one.  In 
this  respect,  accordingly,  T  was  freer  in  his  method  than  the  authors 
of  Matthew  and  Luke,  who,  though  adding  the  infancy  sections,  follow 
the  main  divisions  of  Mark  with  respect  to  other  material.^^ 

In  the  working  out  of  his  plan  T  made  alterations  affecting  the 
order  of  paragraphs,  events,  sentences,  and  words.  Here,  too,  T 
is  freer  with  his  sources  than  the  synoptists  are  with  theirs,  save 
possibly  with  reference  to  the  order  of  words  (see  below,  pp.  77,  78). 
The  order  of  sections  and  events  in  Matthew  and  Luke  is  much 
nearer  to  that  of  Mark^  than  T's  arrangement  is  to  any  one  of 
his  sources.  In  the  change  in  the  order  of  sentences,  too,  T  goes 
farther  than  the  synoptists,  unless  we  except  Matthew.  But  with 
regard  to  the  changed  order  of  words  the  case  is,  as  intimated  above, 

6s  Note,  however,  Luke's  lengthening  of  the  Perean  journey,  which  may  be  considered  analogous  in 
freedom  to  the  arrangement  of  T  just  referred  to,  unless  Luke  has  merely  slipped  in  a  document  in  toto  at 
this  place. 

66  This  statement  is  made  on  the  supposition  that  Mark  was  used  in  some  form  by  Matthew  and 
Luke,  but  the  validity  of  the  comparison  with  T  which  is  involved  would  not  be  affected  if  we  related  the 
synoptic  gospels  in  a  different  way,  since  the  general  order  of  all  three  is  so  similar. 

281]  75 


76  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

slightly  different  for  there  are  relatively  fewer  certainly  attested 
examples  of  this  phenomenon  in  D  than  in  the  synoptic  gospels.  This 
point  will  be  further  considered  below  (pp.  69,  70).  For  the  present 
all  we  need  state  is  that  there  are  occurrences  of  this  phenomenon  in  D 
as  well  as  in  the  synoptic  gospels.  In  this  fact  we  have  an  important 
datum.  It  is  in  reference  to  the  occurrence  in  the  gospels  of 
precisely  such  minute  and,  as  it  were,  unconscious  changes  that 
the  objection  mentioned  above  (footnote,  p.  10)  is  most  vehemently 
urged.  Yet  here  are  examples  in  a  document  which  we  know  to  have 
been  compiled  from  written  sources.  And  we  may  add  to  such 
considerations  that  of  the  similarity  of  T's  additions  to  those  of 
the  synoptists.  They  are  parallel  in  variety,  and  possibly  T's  out- 
number those  of  the  authors  of  the  first  three  gospels.  In  some 
of  T's  additions  which  are  derived  from  other  sources  than  the  four 
evangelists  we  have  an  exact  analogy  to  those  small  items  which 
occur  here  and  there  in  our  first  gospel,  and  whose  sources  are  so 
hard  to  discover.  The  omissions  of  D  are  numerous  and  varied  in 
nature.  No  sort  of  omission  which  can  be  pointed  out  in  the  synop- 
tic gospels  fails  to  find  a  parallel  in  D.  Words  and  phrases,  sentences 
and  clauses,  parallel  material  (which  sometimes  had  a  form  different 
from  that  of  the  material  used),  items  of  material  in  rejected  parallel 
accounts,  and  even  one  long  section  (or  if  both  genealogies  are 
counted,  two),  are  omitted.  In  conflating,  T  goes  to  much  greater 
limits  than  any  of  the  synoptists.  And  yet  his  method  is  directly 
illustrative  of  theirs.  This  is  particularly  true  of  that  phase  of  his 
method  to  which  attention  was  called  above  (chap,  v),  viz.,  the 
enrichment  and  creation  of  discourses  from  more  or  less  scattered 
passages  of  discourse  material.  The  illustrations  of  T's  method 
in  this  respect  which  have  been  presented  above  will  be  especially 
interesting  to  those  who  hold  that  the  authors  of  the  first  and  third 
gospels  had  a  source  which  is  represented,  at  least  in  large  part, 
by  the  Perean  section  of  Luke,  and  that  this  source  furnished  much  of 
the  enrichment  in  the  discourses  of  the  first  gospel.  These  illustra- 
tions are  also  just  as  apt  for  any  who  should  hold  that  the  author 
of  Matthew  used  Luke  directly.  In  either  case,  the  enriching  process 
of  the  author  of  the  first  gospel  has  been  carried  one  step  farther 
by  T.  He  has  continued  the  process  by  adding  more  of  the  Lukan 
material  to  a  substantially  Matthean  basis.  The  study  of  T's  version 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  not  to  consider  any  other  discourses, 
will    amply   substantiate    this    statement.      When    we    pass    from    the 

282 


DIATESSARON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PBOBLEM  77 

consideration  of  conflations  to  that  of  rewriting,  we  find  once  more 
in  D  illustrations  of  phenomena  which  are  alleged  to  be  present 
in  the  gospels.  Every  kind  of  rewriting  is  illustrated  except  that 
of  paragraphs  rewritten  entire.^^  In  particular  are  to  be  noticed 
the  changes  in  grammatical  forms  and  the  substitution  of  synonymous 
words  and  phrases.  But  in  the  case  of  contextual  incongruities, 
the  number  of  instances  in  D  is  comparatively  greater  than  in  the 
synoptic  gospels.  Indeed,  there  are  few  occurrences  of  such  a 
phenomenon  in  the  synoptists.  T  has,  too,  a  greater  variety  of 
repetitions  than  the  first  three  evangelists  ( cf.  p.  74,  supra).  In 
whatever  direction  we  turn,  therefore,  whatever  species  of  deviation 
from  sources  we  seek,  we  find  in  D  illustrations  of  the  phenomena 
(saving  rewritten  paragraphs)  which  are  alleged  to  occur  in  the 
first  three  gospels.  Indeed,  in  some  respects  T  handles  his  sources 
more  freely  than  the  synoptists.  Furthermore,  the  illustrations  show 
a  similarity  between  the  methods  of  T  and  the  synoptists,  not  only  in 
including  every  category  of  phenomena,  but  also  in  that  for  some  of 
these  phenomena  specific  explanations  may  be  found,  while  others 
can  appeal  for  explanation  only  to  general  literary  habit.  In  the  case 
of  many  of  T's  characteristics,  it  can  be  quite  clearly  seen  how  he  was 
led  to  pursue  the  course  adopted.  But  in  others  {e.  g.,  the  change 
in  order  and  the  rewriting  of  words)  no  such  explanation  is  forth- 
coming. It  is,  accordingly,  all  but  impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  the  similarity  of  the  phenomena  in  D  to  those  in  the  synoptic 
gospels  is,  with  the  one  exception  noted,  complete. 

But  over  against  this  completeness  there  may  be  raised  an  objec- 
tion. The  paucity  of  examples  of  omitted  paragraphs  and  of  altered 
order  of  words,  together  with  the  complete  absence  of  rewritten 
sections,  it  may  be  said,  makes  the  similarity  incomplete.  But  the 
paucity  alluded  to  is  only  relative,  and  cannot  be  said  to  constitute 
a  real  difference  in  method.  In  the  case  of  omitted  paragraphs, 
the  difference  is,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  only  apparent,  not  real. 
The  phenomenon  does  not  occur  much  more  frequently  in  the 
gospels  than  in  D.  So  far  as  we  can  be  certain  of  their  sources, 
our  evangelists  omit  sections  rarely.  They  seem  to  have  had  almost, 
if  not  quite,  as  great  a  desire  as  T  not  to  omit  any  section  found  in 
their  sources.  The  fact  that  the  latter  omitted  the  genealogies  shows 
that  his  mind  was  not  immovably  set  against  such  a  procedure.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  may  be  that  T  altered  the  order  of  words  less  often 

67  See  discussion  below,  pp.  78,  79. 


78  HISTORICAL   AND    LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

than  the  authors  of  the  first  three  gospels;  but  this  cannot  be  proved, 
or  even  made  probable,  and  it  is  rather  contrary  to  the  trend  of  the 
evidence.  To  be  sure,  the  actual  number  of  occurrences  of  the 
phenomenon  is  small,  but  the  paucity  is  due  rather  to  our  processes  of 
investigation  than  to  T's  literary  habits.  With  such  a  rigid  limitation 
of  the  text  as  we  have  made,  there  is  relatively  but  a  small  area  left  to 
be  investigated.  This  fact  must  be  remembered  when  judgment 
is  rendered  upon  the  number  of  examples  given  in  any  of  the  lists. 
In  the  area  of  text  which  we  have  traversed  the  number  of  illustrations 
in  almost  all  the  lists  is  great  enough  to  substantiate  our  contention. 
Judging  from  the  number  in  this  limited  sphere,  the  lists  could, 
in  every  case  (except  omissions  of  paragraphs  and  rewriting  of  para- 
graphs), be  greatly  lengthened  if  we  were  permitted  to  use  the  whole 
text  of  A  unchallenged.  In  fact,  examples  of  almost  every  kind 
of  phenomena  have  had  to  be  set  aside  in  the  preparation  of  this 
paper,  on  account  of  the  limits  which,  for  the  sake  of  certainty,  have 
been  determined  for  the  use  of  the  text.  And  what  is  thus  true  of 
almost  all  the  lists  is  particularly  so  with  respect  to  the  occurrences  of 
altered  order  of  words.  The  parallel  passages  of  our  gospels  and 
the  variants  of  the  gospel  texts  all  but  exhaust  the  possibilities  in  the 
arrangement  of  words.  Wherever  there  was  a  possibility  of  change, 
likely  to  arise  in  literary  or  scribal  processes,  either  the  evangelists 
in  their  use  of  one  anothers'  gospels,  or  scribes  in  their  transmission 
of  the  gospel  texts,  have  fallen  into  the  altering  tendency.  Since, 
then,  according  to  the  limitations  set  for  this  investigation,  these 
conditions  almost  exclude  the  possibility  of  finding  instances  of  order 
not  paralleled  in  one  or  another  of  the  gospels  or  in  some  variant 
of  their  texts,  we  should  be  surprised  to  find  any  examples  of  this 
phenomenon  rather  than  complain  of  the  paucity  of  occurrences. 
The  fact  that  such  do  occur,  though  few,  is  very  significant.  If 
our  text  were  not  so  limited  and  our  use  of  it  so  hampered,  we  might 
expect  the  number  to  be  greater;  indeed,  instances  of  difference 
of  order  between  the  text  of  A  and  the  Westcott  and  Hort  Greek  text, 
as  well  as  the  instances  of  other  phenomena  just  referred  to,  have 
been  set  aside  in  our  application  of  our  principles.  It  would  seem, 
therefore,  that  the  paucity  of  occurrences  of  altered  order  of  words, 
no  more  than  the  paucity  of  instances  of  omitted  paragraphs,  is  a 
menace  to  the  acceptability  of  the  conclusion  that  T's  method  is 
completely  similar  to  that  of  the  synoptists. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  absence    of   entire  rewritten   paragraphs 

284 


DIATESSARON   AND    THE   SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM  79 

from  D  constitutes  a  real  difference  between  T's  method  and  that 
of  the  first  three  evangelists.  Yet  this  difference  is  not  sufficiently 
serious  to  shake  appreciably  the  conclusion  already  reached.  T  clearly 
did  hold  the  letter  of  the  gospels  in  sufficiently  higher  regard  than 
the  synoptists  did  their  sources,  to  cause  him  to  refrain  from  rewriting 
paragraphs,  as  they  sometimes  did.  Yet  this  is  the  only  exception  to 
the  general  conclusion  as  regards  the  similarity  of  their  methods. 
T's  greater  fidelity  goes  no  farther  than  this,  and  it  would  be  absurd 
to  allow  this  exception  to  control  our  conclusion,  reached  on  the  basis 
of  otherwise  harmonious,  extensive,  and  complete  evidence.  We 
must  go  no  farther  adversely  to  the  conclusion  than  to  note  and 
admit  the  exception.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  good  ground 
for  holding  that  this  absence  was  to  be  expected.  T  lived  and  wrote 
after  the  entrance  into  Christian  thought  of  the  idea  of  the  canon. 
Indeed,  this  idea  had  reached  a  considerably  advanced  stage  of 
development,  and,  so  far  as  the  supremacy  of  our  four  gospels  is 
concerned,  had  progressed  as  far  as  it  ever  did.  This  idea  certainly 
had  an  effect  upon  T's  choice  of  sources,  and  it  could  hardly  have 
failed  to  bring  about  precisely  that  greater  fidelity  to  them  which 
occasioned  the  exception  to  his  otherwise  free  treatment.  We  should 
not,  therefore,  be  surprised  at  the  absence  from  D  of  rewritten 
paragraphs.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  the  canon  idea  had 
no  effect,  or  at  most  but  little,  upon  the  synoptists,  at  once  explains 
their  comparative  readiness  to  rewrite  even  whole  paragraphs.  In 
this  one  respect  their  method  was  determined  without  the  limitation 
which  beset  T.  The  difference,  therefore,  which  actually  exists  can 
have  little  weight  in  affecting  our  estimate  of  the  method  of  the 
synoptists  in  the  light  of  that  of  T.  But  even  if  we  allow  it  all  the 
force  it  could  claim,  were  it  not  for  the  consideration  of  T's  concep- 
tion of  the  canon,  nevertheless,  it  could  not  balance,  much  less  out- 
weigh, the  otherwise  complete  similarity  of  the  two  methods. 

The  attainment  of  the  conclusion  with  respect  to  this  great 
similarity  puts  us  in  a  position  to  see  what  bearing  the  results  of  our 
study  have  upon  the  solution  of  the  synoptic  problem.  In  the  first 
place,  they  completely  dispose  of  the  objection  to  the  document- 
ary hypothesis  to  which  reference  was  made  above  (footnote,  p.  lo). 
The  objection  rests  upon  two  premises:  (i)  The  high  regard 
of  the  synoptists  for  their  gospel  accounts  would  have  forbidden 
them  to  make  radical  or  purposeless  changes  in  the  use  of  these 
sources.     (2)  Appeal  to  mere  literary  habit,  without  evidence  of  spccif- 

285 


80  HISTOKICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

ically  purposed  change,  is  not  sufficient  to  explain  such  alterations  as 
the  synoptists  are  alleged  to  have  made.  The  first  premise  is  an 
unwarranted  assumption,  since  we  do  not  know  that  these  writers 
regarded  their  sources  with  so  high  a  degree  of  reverence.  A  consid- 
eration of  the  history  of  the  idea  of  the  canon,  and  of  the  fact  that  T, 
under  the  influence  of  this  growing  idea,  used  his  sources  with  greater 
freedom  than  some  today  would  employ  them,  clearly  shows  the  direc- 
tion of  tendency,  and  indicates  that  our  evangelists,  since  the  idea  of 
the  canon  probably  did  not  affect  them,  would  allow  them- 
selves a  large  liberty  in  the  use  of  their  sources,  which  they  neverthe- 
less regarded  as  historically  trustworthy  and  whose  historical  testimony 
they  endeavored  substantially  to  preserve.  We  may  therefore  consider 
the  first  premise  as  giving  no  foundation  for  the  objection.  The 
second  premise  is  destroyed  by  the  consideration  of  the  phenomena 
presented  in  this  paper  and  of  the  conclusion  reached  in  view  of  them. 
Many  of  the  peculiarities  of  D  can  be  ascribed  only  to  T's  literary 
habits.  This  ascription  being  thus  the  only  possible  one,  at  the  same 
time  satisfies  all  reasonable  demand  for  an  explanation.  No  appeal  to 
''tendency"  can  or  need  be  made.  Since  this  is  true  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  D,  there  certainly  is  no  good  reason  for  holding  that  it 
cannot  be  true  of  the  exactly  similar  phenomena  of  the  synoptic  gos- 
pels. Both  of  the  premises  are  therefore  destroyed.  The  evidence  of 
D  is  convincing  and  final  in  its  disposition  of  this  objection  which  is 
so  often  made,  and  which  to  some  seems  the  only  insuperable  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  the  acceptance  of  the  documentary  theory  of  the  origin 
of  our  gospels. 

But  this  negative  conclusion  is  not  the  only  one  which  may  fairly 
be  drawn  from  the  results  of  our  investigation.  Over  against  this  as 
the  first  deduction  is  a  second  which  is  positive.  The  completeness  of 
the  similarity  between  T's  method  and  that  of  the  synoptists  gives 
general  corroboration  of  the  documentary  theory.  There  is  only  one 
consideration  which  precludes  this  corroboration  from  amounting  to  an 
absolute  demonstration.  We  have  no  means  by  which  to  determine 
with  absolute  certainty  whether  such  phenomena  as  appear  in  D  and 
our  gospels  might  or  might  not  arise  in  a  work  whose  author  used 
reasonably  rigid  oral  tradition.  Were  it  possible  to  put  this  considera- 
tion to  the  test  —  as,  e.  g.,  might  be  the  case  if  we  possessed  two  works 
both  of  which  were  certainly  known  to  be  independently  based  upon 
the  same  cycle  of  oral  tradition — we  could  then  determine  whether  the 
phenomena  of  D  and  those  of  the  synoptic  gospels  were  peculiar  to 

286 


DIATESSAKON  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         81 

compilations  from  written  sources,  or  were  common  to  all  works  which 
use  sources  either  written  or  oral.  The  material  for  such  a  test  we  do 
not  now  possess,  and  can  scarcely  hope  ever  to  obtain.  It  is  therefore 
out  of  the  question  to  do  more  than  note  the  necessary  modification  of 
our  conclusion.  Aside  from  this  qualification  which  is  incapable  of 
justification,  we  are  safe,  until  someone  produces  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary, in  concluding  that  the  almost  complete  similarity  mentioned 
above  shows  that  our  synoptists  used  written  sources.  If  T,  a  hundred 
years  more  or  less  after  the  writing  of  the  synoptic  gospels,  could  still 
at  so  late  a  date  write  a  gospel  from  written  sources  by  a  method  all 
but  completely  similar  to  that  alleged  of  the  synoptists,  certainly  there 
can  be  no  a  priori  reason  against  the  documentary  theory  of  the  origin 
of  our  gospels,  but  rather  this  fact  is  a  strong  corroboration  of  it. 

The  sum  total  of  our  work  in  its  relation  to  the  synoptic  problem 
is,  then,  negatively,  to  dispose  of  the  objection  above  referred  to,  and, 
positively,  to  corroborate,  in  both  its  general  and  particular  features, 
the  documentary  hypothesis. 

or  THE 

VNIVER8ITY 


287 


^     LOAN  DEPT. 

Renewals  „a.  b?!„^°f|"«'  *""'•■ 

^//y     n  /5 immediate  recall. 


General  Library 


>iBi  r^  CO 

V;^  93!   CO 

do  t^  « 


o  a 

CJ  H 
O  P 
^    O 

08  ^ 

to    P^ 

«>  o 
OS  -P 

!l 

EH 


/ 


OS 


*l. 


i 


